Discussion:
Question for Chris/mainframetech
Add Reply
bigdog
2018-05-28 00:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
BOZ
2018-05-28 20:30:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
WILL CHRIS SAY THAT THE Z FILM IS ALTERED?
bigdog
2018-05-29 00:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
WILL CHRIS SAY THAT THE Z FILM IS ALTERED?
Is the Pope Catholic?
John McAdams
2018-05-29 00:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
WILL CHRIS SAY THAT THE Z FILM IS ALTERED?
Is the Pope Catholic?
That might not come across the way you intended.

http://babylonbee.com/news/pope-admits-hes-making-up-pretty-much-everything-as-he-goes/

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-05-29 00:39:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
WILL CHRIS SAY THAT THE Z FILM IS ALTERED?
Good call! That's what he would say...:)

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-29 19:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
WILL CHRIS SAY THAT THE Z FILM IS ALTERED?
Didn't he say that a long time ago?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-29 00:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
WTF? You know he doesn't know what he is talking about.
If it were tailsplash that would mean the bullet came from ABOVE the
head. Work out the angle from the line we see in frame 313 and your
shooter location would have to be from a helicopter of UFO hovering
ABOVE Dealey Plaza. And no one noticed it?
mainframetech
2018-05-29 00:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.

"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-30 02:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?

Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.

http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html

He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.

Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.

"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."

So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
mainframetech
2018-05-31 03:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'. But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
Post by bigdog
Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
There are a few reasons why that would be, but there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
Burt it went in only about an inch or so. In the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.

The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-01 03:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.

There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
Because you say so even though you've never been able to present a
plausible explanation how a bullet traveling so slow could maintain its
trajectory well enough to reach the target.
Post by mainframetech
There are a few reasons why that would be,
None that make a lick of sense.
Post by mainframetech
but there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
It did make a hole all the way through to the exit in the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Burt it went in only about an inch or so.
Preposterous.
Post by mainframetech
In the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.
The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.
DiMaio explained how a bullet could bruise the pleura while still passing
some distance from it. The pressure cavity is many times the diameter of
the bullet and it is the pressure cavity which caused the bruising. But I
guess you know better than he does even though your only training in
forensic medicine is what you read in his book.
mainframetech
2018-06-02 01:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction. The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says. I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence. But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid. And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo, they had read the AR and it seemed to
them the case was solved by the pathologists and there was nothing for
them to do. A simple mistake promoted by the pathologists by them lying
in the AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
Because you say so even though you've never been able to present a
plausible explanation how a bullet traveling so slow could maintain its
trajectory well enough to reach the target.
The explanation as given to you, but it's been so long ago that (as
usual) you've forgotten it. The 'short shot' was traveling too slowly to
penetrate more than an inch into the back of JFK. That was proved by the
bruises on pleura and lung, which would have been straight through tears
or punctures if the bullet was traveling at normal speeds. Bullets don't
maneuver around organs in the body, they punch through them.

As to reasons that the bullet was traveling slowly, either there was
some mechanical or chemical problem with he powder or the shell the bullet
came from, or the bullet encountered something along its way and was
slowed before striking JFK. Since the back was hit and not the intended
target (the head), there must have been something gone bad with tat
particular shell which was probably aimed at the BOH and dropped down many
inches to hit the back. Now that you've been told all over again, try to
remember this time.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There are a few reasons why that would be,
None that make a lick of sense.
I didn't say YOU would understand it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
It did make a hole all the way through to the exit in the throat.
Nope, won't do. There is no proof the bullet went that way, and much
proof that it did NOT. And this is getting repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it went in only about an inch or so.
Preposterous.
As is your comment.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.
The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.
DiMaio explained how a bullet could bruise the pleura while still passing
some distance from it. The pressure cavity is many times the diameter of
the bullet and it is the pressure cavity which caused the bruising. But I
guess you know better than he does even though your only training in
forensic medicine is what you read in his book.
Simple physics. The bullet struck the skin over the pleura and lung,
and therefore we know where it struck. It did NOT go somewhere else to
make a pressure point that traveled over to the pleura and lung to bruise
them. And I did NOT see in DiMaio's own words that he said that in the
JFK case that pressure made the bruises while the bullet passed through
somewhere else. And where else would it pas through and not tear or
puncture some organ along the way? Thee is not free space in the human
body for loose bullets to pass through without touching tissue. Further
proof is that the AR made it clear that they did NOT dissect the path of
the bullet further than the entry, and they noted that the pleura was
INTACT.

This has all been repetitive and if we have to go over this again, I'm
gonna be outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-02 21:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
has described his The Academic JFK Assassination Website as follows:

" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
Post by mainframetech
they had read the AR and it seemed to
them the case was solved by the pathologists and there was nothing for
them to do. A simple mistake promoted by the pathologists by them lying
in the AR.
I don't know why but I find it hysterically funny every time you make this
arguments.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
Because you say so even though you've never been able to present a
plausible explanation how a bullet traveling so slow could maintain its
trajectory well enough to reach the target.
The explanation as given to you,
I did say a PLAUSIBLE explanation. That has never been given by you.
Post by mainframetech
but it's been so long ago that (as
usual) you've forgotten it. The 'short shot' was traveling too slowly to
penetrate more than an inch into the back of JFK.
If it was traveling that slow it would never have held its trajectory to
the target. It would have fallen well short. Hence the term "short
shot".
Post by mainframetech
That was proved by the bruises on pleura and lung,
I've quoted DiMaio explaining that the pressure cavity created by a
transiting bullet is many times as wide as the bullet itself and it can
cause tissue damage some distance from the actual bullet tract. As is your
norm when presented inconvenient evidence, you choose to ignore it.
Post by mainframetech
which would have been straight through tears
or punctures if the bullet was traveling at normal speeds. Bullets don't
maneuver around organs in the body, they punch through them.
The can also damage organs they pass close to as explained by DiMaio.
Post by mainframetech
As to reasons that the bullet was traveling slowly, either there was
some mechanical or chemical problem with he powder or the shell the bullet
came from, or the bullet encountered something along its way and was
slowed before striking JFK.
If any of that had happened, the gravity would have prevented such a
bullet from reaching the target. It's simple physics. Gravity would start
to draw the bullet back toward earth the instant it left the muzzle. The
longer time a bullet takes to reach the target, the greater it will
drop.
Post by mainframetech
Since the back was hit and not the intended
target (the head), there must have been something gone bad with tat
particular shell which was probably aimed at the BOH and dropped down many
inches to hit the back. Now that you've been told all over again, try to
remember this time.
For a bullet to be traveling as slow as you are suggesting, it would have
dropped far more than from the head to the upper back. For example the .38
Special Ruby fired into Oswald's gut went in the front left and bulged out
his right side. Typical muzzle velocity of a .38 Special is in the 1300
fps range. You need a bullet traveling much, much slower than that,
probably no more than a few hundred fps. Unless the shot was fired from
very close range, the bullet would have dropped a number of feet.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There are a few reasons why that would be,
None that make a lick of sense.
I didn't say YOU would understand it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
It did make a hole all the way through to the exit in the throat.
Nope, won't do. There is no proof the bullet went that way,
Every forensic pathologist who looked at the evidence disagrees with you.
Post by mainframetech
and much
proof that it did NOT. And this is getting repetitive.
Your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence isn't proof of anything except
you don't have a clue.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it went in only about an inch or so.
Preposterous.
As is your comment.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.
The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.
DiMaio explained how a bullet could bruise the pleura while still passing
some distance from it. The pressure cavity is many times the diameter of
the bullet and it is the pressure cavity which caused the bruising. But I
guess you know better than he does even though your only training in
forensic medicine is what you read in his book.
Simple physics. The bullet struck the skin over the pleura and lung,
and therefore we know where it struck.
No, YOU think you know that. Every competent medical examiner disagrees
with you.

It did NOT go somewhere else to
Post by mainframetech
make a pressure point that traveled over to the pleura and lung to bruise
them. And I did NOT see in DiMaio's own words that he said that in the
JFK case that pressure made the bruises while the bullet passed through
somewhere else.
DiMaio's words explain why tissue not struck directly by a bullet could
still be injured as a result of the bullet passing close.
Post by mainframetech
And where else would it pas through and not tear or
puncture some organ along the way?
The strap muscles. Read the AR.
Post by mainframetech
Thee is not free space in the human
body for loose bullets to pass through without touching tissue. Further
proof is that the AR made it clear that they did NOT dissect the path of
the bullet further than the entry, and they noted that the pleura was
INTACT.
This has all been repetitive and if we have to go over this again, I'm
gonna be outa here.
In the future you should do that before making yourself look foolish. It's
too late for this thread.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 22:33:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
9 feet West of the corner of the fence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
That is were the skull fragments were blown out.
Who is th THEY you are talking about?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yes. Thank God you have conspiracy believers here to show you they
evidence that the WC would not.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
Well, at least if he is treating a patient he can see the hole in the
forehead.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
Post by mainframetech
they had read the AR and it seemed to
them the case was solved by the pathologists and there was nothing for
them to do. A simple mistake promoted by the pathologists by them lying
in the AR.
I don't know why but I find it hysterically funny every time you make this
arguments.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
Because you say so even though you've never been able to present a
plausible explanation how a bullet traveling so slow could maintain its
trajectory well enough to reach the target.
The explanation as given to you,
I did say a PLAUSIBLE explanation. That has never been given by you.
Post by mainframetech
but it's been so long ago that (as
usual) you've forgotten it. The 'short shot' was traveling too slowly to
penetrate more than an inch into the back of JFK.
If it was traveling that slow it would never have held its trajectory to
the target. It would have fallen well short. Hence the term "short
shot".
Post by mainframetech
That was proved by the bruises on pleura and lung,
I've quoted DiMaio explaining that the pressure cavity created by a
transiting bullet is many times as wide as the bullet itself and it can
cause tissue damage some distance from the actual bullet tract. As is your
norm when presented inconvenient evidence, you choose to ignore it.
Post by mainframetech
which would have been straight through tears
or punctures if the bullet was traveling at normal speeds. Bullets don't
maneuver around organs in the body, they punch through them.
The can also damage organs they pass close to as explained by DiMaio.
Post by mainframetech
As to reasons that the bullet was traveling slowly, either there was
some mechanical or chemical problem with he powder or the shell the bullet
came from, or the bullet encountered something along its way and was
slowed before striking JFK.
If any of that had happened, the gravity would have prevented such a
bullet from reaching the target. It's simple physics. Gravity would start
OK. So maybe you believe the bullet just fell out.
Post by bigdog
to draw the bullet back toward earth the instant it left the muzzle. The
longer time a bullet takes to reach the target, the greater it will
drop.
Post by mainframetech
Since the back was hit and not the intended
target (the head), there must have been something gone bad with tat
particular shell which was probably aimed at the BOH and dropped down many
inches to hit the back. Now that you've been told all over again, try to
remember this time.
For a bullet to be traveling as slow as you are suggesting, it would have
dropped far more than from the head to the upper back. For example the .38
Special Ruby fired into Oswald's gut went in the front left and bulged out
his right side. Typical muzzle velocity of a .38 Special is in the 1300
fps range. You need a bullet traveling much, much slower than that,
probably no more than a few hundred fps. Unless the shot was fired from
very close range, the bullet would have dropped a number of feet.
Are you suggeesting that a silence was used?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There are a few reasons why that would be,
None that make a lick of sense.
I didn't say YOU would understand it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
It did make a hole all the way through to the exit in the throat.
Nope, won't do. There is no proof the bullet went that way,
Every forensic pathologist who looked at the evidence disagrees with you.
Post by mainframetech
and much
proof that it did NOT. And this is getting repetitive.
Your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence isn't proof of anything except
you don't have a clue.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it went in only about an inch or so.
Preposterous.
As is your comment.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.
The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.
DiMaio explained how a bullet could bruise the pleura while still passing
some distance from it. The pressure cavity is many times the diameter of
the bullet and it is the pressure cavity which caused the bruising. But I
guess you know better than he does even though your only training in
forensic medicine is what you read in his book.
Simple physics. The bullet struck the skin over the pleura and lung,
and therefore we know where it struck.
No, YOU think you know that. Every competent medical examiner disagrees
with you.
It did NOT go somewhere else to
Post by mainframetech
make a pressure point that traveled over to the pleura and lung to bruise
them. And I did NOT see in DiMaio's own words that he said that in the
JFK case that pressure made the bruises while the bullet passed through
somewhere else.
DiMaio's words explain why tissue not struck directly by a bullet could
still be injured as a result of the bullet passing close.
Post by mainframetech
And where else would it pas through and not tear or
puncture some organ along the way?
The strap muscles. Read the AR.
Which one?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Thee is not free space in the human
body for loose bullets to pass through without touching tissue. Further
proof is that the AR made it clear that they did NOT dissect the path of
the bullet further than the entry, and they noted that the pleura was
INTACT.
This has all been repetitive and if we have to go over this again, I'm
gonna be outa here.
In the future you should do that before making yourself look foolish. It's
too late for this thread.
mainframetech
2018-06-04 01:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics. That's
why I can correct you so often.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-04 23:33:42 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
I guess that was a stumper?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
No comment here either?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics.
They have that too and have far more training than you do and got to see
far more evidence than you have. Why do you suppose they ALL came up with
a different answer than you have?
Post by mainframetech
That's why I can correct you so often.
You aren't correcting me. You are trying to correct teams of highly
qualified forensic medical examiners and making yourself look very foolish
in the process. You would be wise to simply accept the unanimous verdict
of all these professionals rather than relying on your own amateurish
opinions. But then that would make it impossible to believe the things you
want to believe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
I guess you don't like when I point out how you go back and forth from
telling us your imaginary bullet hole is either very obvious or hard to
see.
mainframetech
2018-06-06 00:51:08 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
these days, now that she can tell her whole story:


Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again., check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area. I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you. As to common sense, I've told you that I'm not here to
convince everyone to my way of thinking, but to lay out my thoughts and
discoveries and let folks make their own decisions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Post by bigdog
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
I guess that was a stumper?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
No comment here either?
What's to say? I've made my comments and your copying Rahn won't
change it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics.
They have that too and have far more training than you do and got to see
far more evidence than you have. Why do you suppose they ALL came up with
a different answer than you have?
Simple, they had an answer already given to them in the AR and they
didn't think to go around and ENLARGE every photo they saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's why I can correct you so often.
You aren't correcting me. You are trying to correct teams of highly
qualified forensic medical examiners and making yourself look very foolish
in the process. You would be wise to simply accept the unanimous verdict
of all these professionals rather than relying on your own amateurish
opinions. But then that would make it impossible to believe the things you
want to believe.
LOL! Hard to look foolish talking about a bullet hole that can be
seen by everyone that looks for it except you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
I guess you don't like when I point out how you go back and forth from
telling us your imaginary bullet hole is either very obvious or hard to
see.
Try using your brains to interpret what you see.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-06 19:56:49 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again., check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Post by mainframetech
As to common sense, I've told you that I'm not here to
convince everyone to my way of thinking, but to lay out my thoughts and
discoveries and let folks make their own decisions.
I'm glad that you don't care if anyone is buying your nonsense because I
seriously doubt anyone is.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Post by bigdog
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
I guess that was a stumper?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
No comment here either?
What's to say? I've made my comments and your copying Rahn won't
change it.
I copied Rahn's statement to demonstrate to you that he believes as I do
that Oswald was the lone assassin which demonstrates how silly it was for
you to accuse me of disparaging him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics.
They have that too and have far more training than you do and got to see
far more evidence than you have. Why do you suppose they ALL came up with
a different answer than you have?
Simple, they had an answer already given to them in the AR and they
didn't think to go around and ENLARGE every photo they saw.
Oh, so you think none of them bothered to rely on their years of training
and instead just accepted what they were told. Even Dr. Michael Baden who
testified before the HSCA. Do you think he was just telling them what he
had been told? Even Cyril Wecht who went on to become a vocal proponent of
a second gunman while still agreeing with the finding that JFK was struck
twice from behind.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's why I can correct you so often.
You aren't correcting me. You are trying to correct teams of highly
qualified forensic medical examiners and making yourself look very foolish
in the process. You would be wise to simply accept the unanimous verdict
of all these professionals rather than relying on your own amateurish
opinions. But then that would make it impossible to believe the things you
want to believe.
LOL! Hard to look foolish talking about a bullet hole that can be
seen by everyone that looks for it except you.
There are exactly TWO people other than yourself who claim to see a bullet
hole there. John McAdams told you fairly recently there is no bullet hole
in the forehead. Others have told you that in the past as well yet you
continue to pretend those people are all on your side of this issue.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
I guess you don't like when I point out how you go back and forth from
telling us your imaginary bullet hole is either very obvious or hard to
see.
Try using your brains to interpret what you see.
What I see has nothing to do with how you've waffled on the question of
how obvious your imaginary bullet hole is.
mainframetech
2018-06-07 14:12:38 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to ay, since some of them are had to tell what's happening. And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
which you no doubt in your great knowledge ignored. Here they are again:



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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation. If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Stick your nitpicking. It won't help you. ALL of the witnesses saw
the bullet hole in the area I specified. Prove otherwise or give it up.
You have nothing to hang your hat on so you keep going back to that old
saw, which is wrong.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to common sense, I've told you that I'm not here to
convince everyone to my way of thinking, but to lay out my thoughts and
discoveries and let folks make their own decisions.
I'm glad that you don't care if anyone is buying your nonsense because I
seriously doubt anyone is.
Can't stick with evidence, eh?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
I guess that was a stumper?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
No comment here either?
What's to say? I've made my comments and your copying Rahn won't
change it.
I copied Rahn's statement to demonstrate to you that he believes as I do
that Oswald was the lone assassin which demonstrates how silly it was for
you to accuse me of disparaging him.
His words are among those I've used to copy in for proof of various
things I've said. So now you'll have to give my data more belief, since
you like him as a witness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics.
They have that too and have far more training than you do and got to see
far more evidence than you have. Why do you suppose they ALL came up with
a different answer than you have?
Simple, they had an answer already given to them in the AR and they
didn't think to go around and ENLARGE every photo they saw.
Oh, so you think none of them bothered to rely on their years of training
and instead just accepted what they were told. Even Dr. Michael Baden who
testified before the HSCA. Do you think he was just telling them what he
had been told? Even Cyril Wecht who went on to become a vocal proponent of
a second gunman while still agreeing with the finding that JFK was struck
twice from behind.
I'm sure that when they were nominated to sit on the panels, they
thought it was a political job. Which it was. They read that AR first,
and saw nothing in a quick run through of the photos they were given, and
they ruled the same as the AR. Simple, they just didn't think to ENLARGE
that one photo. All the others were missing that would have showed
something of value.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's why I can correct you so often.
You aren't correcting me. You are trying to correct teams of highly
qualified forensic medical examiners and making yourself look very foolish
in the process. You would be wise to simply accept the unanimous verdict
of all these professionals rather than relying on your own amateurish
opinions. But then that would make it impossible to believe the things you
want to believe.
LOL! Hard to look foolish talking about a bullet hole that can be
seen by everyone that looks for it except you.
There are exactly TWO people other than yourself who claim to see a bullet
hole there.
WRONG! You keep screwing up on that! There were also a list of
witnesses to that wound, and they saw it right where the area is that I
specified.
Post by bigdog
John McAdams told you fairly recently there is no bullet hole
in the forehead. Others have told you that in the past as well yet you
continue to pretend those people are all on your side of this issue.
Strange, I don't remember him saying that! Maybe I'm getting your
disease of memory. But why would his comment change my mind? I have seen
the bullet hole and it is real. And not another person has told me that,
though they have said they saw something other than a bullet hole.
You're the only one that saw nothing out of normal.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
I guess you don't like when I point out how you go back and forth from
telling us your imaginary bullet hole is either very obvious or hard to
see.
Try using your brains to interpret what you see.
What I see has nothing to do with how you've waffled on the question of
how obvious your imaginary bullet hole is.
Your opinions are wrong as usual. You must live in a world of fantasy.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-08 22:05:52 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to ay, since some of them are had to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Stick your nitpicking. It won't help you. ALL of the witnesses saw
the bullet hole in the area I specified.
It says a lot that you think it is nitpicking to point out that the
witness' placement of the wound doesn't match yours.
Post by mainframetech
Prove otherwise or give it up.
You have nothing to hang your hat on so you keep going back to that old
saw, which is wrong.
Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. You have placed the wound at the
hairline above the right eye. Jenkins said the wound was in the temporal
bone which surrounds the ear. Nowhere near your wound. Dennis David points
to a spot at the level of the eye, not above it and on the side of his
head. Considerably lower and farther back than your placement. That's just
two. How many more would you like?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to common sense, I've told you that I'm not here to
convince everyone to my way of thinking, but to lay out my thoughts and
discoveries and let folks make their own decisions.
I'm glad that you don't care if anyone is buying your nonsense because I
seriously doubt anyone is.
Can't stick with evidence, eh?
Can't produce any evidence, eh?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
I guess that was a stumper?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
No comment here either?
What's to say? I've made my comments and your copying Rahn won't
change it.
I copied Rahn's statement to demonstrate to you that he believes as I do
that Oswald was the lone assassin which demonstrates how silly it was for
you to accuse me of disparaging him.
His words are among those I've used to copy in for proof of various
things I've said. So now you'll have to give my data more belief, since
you like him as a witness.
I've never read anything written by Ken Rahn that remotely supports your
goofy theories.
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
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics.
They have that too and have far more training than you do and got to see
far more evidence than you have. Why do you suppose they ALL came up with
a different answer than you have?
Simple, they had an answer already given to them in the AR and they
didn't think to go around and ENLARGE every photo they saw.
Oh, so you think none of them bothered to rely on their years of training
and instead just accepted what they were told. Even Dr. Michael Baden who
testified before the HSCA. Do you think he was just telling them what he
had been told? Even Cyril Wecht who went on to become a vocal proponent of
a second gunman while still agreeing with the finding that JFK was struck
twice from behind.
I'm sure that when they were nominated to sit on the panels, they
thought it was a political job.
Why are you sure of that?
Post by mainframetech
Which it was. They read that AR first,
How do you know that?
Post by mainframetech
and saw nothing in a quick run through of the photos they were given, and
they ruled the same as the AR.
How do you know they just did a quick run through of the photos?
Post by mainframetech
Simple, they just didn't think to ENLARGE
that one photo. All the others were missing that would have showed
something of value.
Life is very simple when you just make believe things are the way you want
them to be.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's why I can correct you so often.
You aren't correcting me. You are trying to correct teams of highly
qualified forensic medical examiners and making yourself look very foolish
in the process. You would be wise to simply accept the unanimous verdict
of all these professionals rather than relying on your own amateurish
opinions. But then that would make it impossible to believe the things you
want to believe.
LOL! Hard to look foolish talking about a bullet hole that can be
seen by everyone that looks for it except you.
There are exactly TWO people other than yourself who claim to see a bullet
hole there.
WRONG! You keep screwing up on that! There were also a list of
witnesses to that wound, and they saw it right where the area is that I
specified.
You keep ignoring the fact the witnesses didn't place it where you think
you see it. I've already given two witnesses in this post. How many more
would you like.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
John McAdams told you fairly recently there is no bullet hole
in the forehead. Others have told you that in the past as well yet you
continue to pretend those people are all on your side of this issue.
Strange, I don't remember him saying that!
Strange because he said it in a reply to you.
Post by mainframetech
Maybe I'm getting your
disease of memory. But why would his comment change my mind? I have seen
the bullet hole and it is real. And not another person has told me that,
though they have said they saw something other than a bullet hole.
You're the only one that saw nothing out of normal.
If they told you they saw something other than a bullet hole, they are
telling you they don't see a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
I guess you don't like when I point out how you go back and forth from
telling us your imaginary bullet hole is either very obvious or hard to
see.
Try using your brains to interpret what you see.
What I see has nothing to do with how you've waffled on the question of
how obvious your imaginary bullet hole is.
Your opinions are wrong as usual. You must live in a world of fantasy.
Irony noted.
mainframetech
2018-06-10 17:57:18 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
You seem to have once again forgotten key information:



The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.


He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason, and I'm sick of
trying to get you to see it. You marked it out on a photo and showed it
to me, and you then said it wasn't there, when you had circled it exactly.
So you're either fooling around or you're having delusions because of what
it would mean if you admitted you could see it. The quality of the photo
is fine for seeing the bullet hole, and it's not a simple "dark spot", but
a bullet hole with a fleshy rim around it.

One more time with this stupid business and I'm outa here.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Stick your nitpicking. It won't help you. ALL of the witnesses saw
the bullet hole in the area I specified.
It says a lot that you think it is nitpicking to point out that the
witness' placement of the wound doesn't match yours.
We've been over that numerous times. You have an answer to that.
I'm outa here as I promised above.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-11 14:24:02 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
Post by mainframetech
You marked it out on a photo and showed it
to me, and you then said it wasn't there, when you had circled it exactly.
I said it wasn't a bullet hole. The dark spot is nothing but a small tuft
of hair which descends below the hairline but is otherwise
indistinguishable from the rest of his hair. It is exactly the same shade.
Nothing that indicates it is a bullet hole other than imagination.
Post by mainframetech
So you're either fooling around or you're having delusions because of what
it would mean if you admitted you could see it. The quality of the photo
is fine for seeing the bullet hole, and it's not a simple "dark spot", but
a bullet hole with a fleshy rim around it.
Is that so. Explain how that dark spot differs from the hair which it
extends out from.
Post by mainframetech
One more time with this stupid business and I'm outa here.
Do you really, really mean it this time?

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."
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
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Stick your nitpicking. It won't help you. ALL of the witnesses saw
the bullet hole in the area I specified.
It says a lot that you think it is nitpicking to point out that the
witness' placement of the wound doesn't match yours.
We've been over that numerous times. You have an answer to that.
I'm outa here as I promised above.
As you have promised many times before.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-12 02:43:27 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
Post by mainframetech
You marked it out on a photo and showed it
to me, and you then said it wasn't there, when you had circled it exactly.
I said it wasn't a bullet hole. The dark spot is nothing but a small tuft
of hair which descends below the hairline but is otherwise
indistinguishable from the rest of his hair. It is exactly the same shade.
Nothing that indicates it is a bullet hole other than imagination.
And YOU can't see the bullet hole on the skull. Because you refuse to
look.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So you're either fooling around or you're having delusions because of what
it would mean if you admitted you could see it. The quality of the photo
is fine for seeing the bullet hole, and it's not a simple "dark spot", but
a bullet hole with a fleshy rim around it.
Is that so. Explain how that dark spot differs from the hair which it
extends out from.
Post by mainframetech
One more time with this stupid business and I'm outa here.
Do you really, really mean it this time?
"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."
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
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Stick your nitpicking. It won't help you. ALL of the witnesses saw
the bullet hole in the area I specified.
It says a lot that you think it is nitpicking to point out that the
witness' placement of the wound doesn't match yours.
We've been over that numerous times. You have an answer to that.
I'm outa here as I promised above.
As you have promised many times before.
mainframetech
2018-06-12 21:48:37 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
WRONG again! I have to keep pointing out to you that you have just
called over 39 eyewitnesses who corroborate each other that 'they are all
lying'.

But let's go to the Autopsy Report (AR). It's under 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."




Remember that I stated that the wounds were limited at Parkland
hospital, but were expanded at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell. Note too
that the AR state that there was damage also in the occipital region.
That is the lower rear section of the head. That can also be described as
the BOH. And that's where the over 39 eyewitnesses saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH. The other parts where the hole was seen by the pathologists
were added by Humes and Boswell at Bethesda. The eyewitnesses saw the
damage before the Bethesda expansion happened.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Yep, but OBVIOUSLY you were hoping for a greater turn than you got.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
WRONG! The "different time" was simply a bit of time different from
the 'current' time. There was not some major time distortion. You were
unable to repeat the way the video explained it and so got it wrong.
Splicing the film in the fashion described was one of the methods
available in in 1963. What Zapruder was doing is unimportant to the point
of the proof video. The film produced by Zapruder was manipulated in the
fashion described. So you failed on the first video and failed to mention
the second video. Hmm. Did that one stump you, or were you unable to
find anything wrong with it?
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Now you've uttered another false opinion. Actually physics often come
into my comments.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot make history by making opinions as if they wee evidence.
You cannot change the facts either. The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have
said that on a number of occasions when you were repeating the same old
stuff over and over, like now. The quality of the photo is plenty good
enough to see the obvious bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it.
Since you can't see it, why are you describing it?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Most people do. I know that from showing it to them. And listening to
their comments after they have looked. Which few here have tried to do,
probably because of the fear of finding out they've been wrong all these
years.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
You've forgotten the list of people that were witnesses to the wound
in question, and you ALWAYS try to forget them, for obvious reason. This
is a repetitive conversation, and so I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-14 00:50:37 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
WRONG again! I have to keep pointing out to you that you have just
called over 39 eyewitnesses who corroborate each other that 'they are all
lying'.
I'll bet you $1000 you can't find one of my posts in which I wrote that
about them.
Post by mainframetech
"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."
Remember that I stated that the wounds were limited at Parkland
hospital, but were expanded at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell.
Wrong on both counts. It was the same sized defect. The difference is the
forward portion of the defect had been closed by Jackie in an attempt to
keep his brains from oozing out of the top of his head. Parkland never saw
the full extent of the defect because nobody treated the head wound. All
they saw was the portion of the hole left by the piece that had been blown
completely away preventing Jackie from closing that portion of the wound.
Post by mainframetech
Note too
that the AR state that there was damage also in the occipital region.
That has never been in dispute. That was the portion which was apparent to
the witnesses at Parkland.
Post by mainframetech
That is the lower rear section of the head. That can also be described as
the BOH. And that's where the over 39 eyewitnesses saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH.
That's where they saw PART OF the large hole.
Post by mainframetech
The other parts where the hole was seen by the pathologists
were added by Humes and Boswell at Bethesda. The eyewitnesses saw the
damage before the Bethesda expansion happened.
This is where you just make shit up.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Yep, but OBVIOUSLY you were hoping for a greater turn than you got.
"Obviously" is the term you use when you have nothing to back up the
things you claim.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
WRONG! The "different time" was simply a bit of time different from
the 'current' time. There was not some major time distortion.
Then why do it at all?
Post by mainframetech
You were
unable to repeat the way the video explained it and so got it wrong.
Splicing the film in the fashion described was one of the methods
available in in 1963. What Zapruder was doing is unimportant to the point
of the proof video. The film produced by Zapruder was manipulated in the
fashion described. So you failed on the first video and failed to mention
the second video. Hmm. Did that one stump you, or were you unable to
find anything wrong with it?
Did they manipulate Zapruder too so he described exactly what we would
later see in his film. Did they manipulate Bill Newman who was standing in
front of Zapruder and was the closest witness when the bullet struck the
head. He described the same kind of wound to the side of JFK's head. He
initially thought JFK' ear had been blown off. Was JFK's ear in the BOH?
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Now you've uttered another false opinion. Actually physics often come
into my comments.
Are you serious?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot make history by making opinions as if they wee evidence.
I forgot. Only you are allowed to do that.
Post by mainframetech
You cannot change the facts either. The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have
said that on a number of occasions when you were repeating the same old
stuff over and over, like now.
I'm going to bookmark this and present it back to you then next time you
tell me how obvious it is there is a bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The quality of the photo is plenty good
enough to see the obvious bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it.
Since you can't see it, why are you describing it?
You make this too easy. There's just no sport in it. You just got done
telling me, "The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of
occasions" and in the very next sentence you describe it as "the obvious
bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it". I bookmarked it because I
thought I would need it for later reference but you made that completely
unnecessary. In consecutive sentences you completely contradicted yourself
by saying your bullet hole is both "NOT OBVIOUS" and then "obvious".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Most people do. I know that from showing it to them.
Did you show them the obvious one or the one that was not obvious?
Post by mainframetech
And listening to
their comments after they have looked. Which few here have tried to do,
probably because of the fear of finding out they've been wrong all these
years.
Trust me on this one. No LN fears any of your claims.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
You've forgotten the list of people that were witnesses to the wound
in question,
That was a different wound than the one you claim to see. They placed it
in different locations.
Post by mainframetech
and you ALWAYS try to forget them, for obvious reason. This
is a repetitive conversation, and so I'm outa here.
Why would I want to forget them when they contradict YOU.
mainframetech
2018-06-15 01:09:10 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
WRONG again! I have to keep pointing out to you that you have just
called over 39 eyewitnesses who corroborate each other that 'they are all
lying'.
I'll bet you $1000 you can't find one of my posts in which I wrote that
about them.
Possibly, but you have implied it that the wound I've spoken about
wasn't like I described.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"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."
Remember that I stated that the wounds were limited at Parkland
hospital, but were expanded at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell.
Wrong on both counts. It was the same sized defect. The difference is the
forward portion of the defect had been closed by Jackie in an attempt to
keep his brains from oozing out of the top of his head. Parkland never saw
the full extent of the defect because nobody treated the head wound. All
they saw was the portion of the hole left by the piece that had been blown
completely away preventing Jackie from closing that portion of the wound.
WRONG! You've tried that one and lost it. And here you are repeating
something all over again. You love to hash this stuff over and over for
lack of anything substantive to say. Nothing was closed by Jackie. She
may have thought she was doing that, but there was nothing there to close
up. You need that fantasy to save your argument, but it fails. The
autopsy that you rely on heavily doesn't mention all these mythical flaps
in the AR. Every bit of the skull that was present had scalp sticking to
it except one place above the right ear. And that seems to have appeared
during the clandestine work done by Humes and Boswell.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Note too
that the AR state that there was damage also in the occipital region.
That has never been in dispute. That was the portion which was apparent to
the witnesses at Parkland.
Now you're getting it! And also the over 39 eyewitnesses that saw that
wound also. They all corroborate that sighting.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is the lower rear section of the head. That can also be described as
the BOH. And that's where the over 39 eyewitnesses saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH.
That's where they saw PART OF the large hole.
FALSE! I've shown you the drawings made by eyewitnesses, and the hole
they show does NOT go around the head. It is completely in the BOH, and
mostly in the occipital region. The evidence is clear. Don't dismiss
again.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The other parts where the hole was seen by the pathologists
were added by Humes and Boswell at Bethesda. The eyewitnesses saw the
damage before the Bethesda expansion happened.
This is where you just make shit up.
You forget that there were witnesses to the clandestine work.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Yep, but OBVIOUSLY you were hoping for a greater turn than you got.
"Obviously" is the term you use when you have nothing to back up the
things you claim.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
WRONG! The "different time" was simply a bit of time different from
the 'current' time. There was not some major time distortion.
Then why do it at all?
Post by mainframetech
You were
unable to repeat the way the video explained it and so got it wrong.
Splicing the film in the fashion described was one of the methods
available in 1963. What Zapruder was doing is unimportant to the point
of the proof video. The film produced by Zapruder was manipulated in the
fashion described. So you failed on the first video and failed to mention
the second video. Hmm. Did that one stump you, or were you unable to
find anything wrong with it?
Did they manipulate Zapruder too so he described exactly what we would
later see in his film. Did they manipulate Bill Newman who was standing in
front of Zapruder and was the closest witness when the bullet struck the
head. He described the same kind of wound to the side of JFK's head. He
initially thought JFK' ear had been blown off. Was JFK's ear in the BOH?
Note that you failed to answer my question, and tried to change the
drift. That someone thought they saw something that didn't happen is what
you've been saying all along, while being unable to see a bullet hole in
the forehead of JFK! The one or two people you mention don't add up to
over 39 eye witnesses, many of whom were medically trained.
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Now you've uttered another false opinion. Actually physics often come
into my comments.
Are you serious?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot make history by making opinions as if they were evidence.
I forgot. Only you are allowed to do that.
Post by mainframetech
You cannot change the facts either. The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have
said that on a number of occasions when you were repeating the same old
stuff over and over, like now.
I'm going to bookmark this and present it back to you then next time you
tell me how obvious it is there is a bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The quality of the photo is plenty good
enough to see the obvious bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it.
Since you can't see it, why are you describing it?
You make this too easy. There's just no sport in it. You just got done
telling me, "The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of
occasions" and in the very next sentence you describe it as "the obvious
bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it". I bookmarked it because I
thought I would need it for later reference but you made that completely
unnecessary. In consecutive sentences you completely contradicted yourself
by saying your bullet hole is both "NOT OBVIOUS" and then "obvious".
WRONG! I've also just got done telling you MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER
that you have to ENLARGE the photo to see the wound, and then it's
obvious. It is NOT obvious when you first encounter it, and you can ask
the medical panels about that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Most people do. I know that from showing it to them.
Did you show them the obvious one or the one that was not obvious?
There's only one, and you damn well know it. Don't make a fool of
yourself.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And listening to
their comments after they have looked. Which few here have tried to do,
probably because of the fear of finding out they've been wrong all these
years.
Trust me on this one. No LN fears any of your claims.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
You've forgotten the list of people that were witnesses to the wound
in question,
That was a different wound than the one you claim to see. They placed it
in different locations.
Post by mainframetech
and you ALWAYS try to forget them, for obvious reason. This
is a repetitive conversation, and so I'm outa here.
Why would I want to forget them when they contradict YOU.
bigdog
2018-06-16 16:16:56 UTC
Reply
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
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
WRONG again! I have to keep pointing out to you that you have just
called over 39 eyewitnesses who corroborate each other that 'they are all
lying'.
I'll bet you $1000 you can't find one of my posts in which I wrote that
about them.
Possibly, but you have implied it that the wound I've spoken about
wasn't like I described.
I haven't implied it. I've said it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"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."
Remember that I stated that the wounds were limited at Parkland
hospital, but were expanded at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell.
Wrong on both counts. It was the same sized defect. The difference is the
forward portion of the defect had been closed by Jackie in an attempt to
keep his brains from oozing out of the top of his head. Parkland never saw
the full extent of the defect because nobody treated the head wound. All
they saw was the portion of the hole left by the piece that had been blown
completely away preventing Jackie from closing that portion of the wound.
WRONG! You've tried that one and lost it. And here you are repeating
something all over again. You love to hash this stuff over and over for
lack of anything substantive to say. Nothing was closed by Jackie.
She said in her testimony that she was trying to keep his hair on his
skull on. What does that say to you? It says to me she was holding down
the flaps of skull. For some reason the WC chose to scrub her description
of the wounds from the official record which makes no sense to me. The
following link provides the passage that was deleted.

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
She may have thought she was doing that, but there was nothing there to close
up. You need that fantasy to save your argument, but it fails. The
autopsy that you rely on heavily doesn't mention all these mythical flaps
in the AR. Every bit of the skull that was present had scalp sticking to
it except one place above the right ear.
Scalp sticking to skull is the definition of a skull flap.
Post by mainframetech
And that seems to have appeared
during the clandestine work done by Humes and Boswell.
No, it appeared long before that. It appeared in the Z-film. It appeared
in the descriptions Zapruder and Bill Newman gave on live TV before the
film was ever developed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Note too
that the AR state that there was damage also in the occipital region.
That has never been in dispute. That was the portion which was apparent to
the witnesses at Parkland.
Now you're getting it! And also the over 39 eyewitnesses that saw that
wound also. They all corroborate that sighting.
None of the people you cite saw the full extent of the blowout. That
didn't become apparent until the autopsy when the forward flaps were
opened up revealing how massive the blowout was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is the lower rear section of the head. That can also be described as
the BOH. And that's where the over 39 eyewitnesses saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH.
That's where they saw PART OF the large hole.
FALSE! I've shown you the drawings made by eyewitnesses, and the hole
they show does NOT go around the head. It is completely in the BOH, and
mostly in the occipital region. The evidence is clear. Don't dismiss
again.
The drawings do nothing but illustrate the impression of these witnesses
who were seeing just part of the large defect.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The other parts where the hole was seen by the pathologists
were added by Humes and Boswell at Bethesda. The eyewitnesses saw the
damage before the Bethesda expansion happened.
This is where you just make shit up.
You forget that there were witnesses to the clandestine work.
No there weren't. You just imagine that what they described seeing was
clandestine work.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Yep, but OBVIOUSLY you were hoping for a greater turn than you got.
"Obviously" is the term you use when you have nothing to back up the
things you claim.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
WRONG! The "different time" was simply a bit of time different from
the 'current' time. There was not some major time distortion.
Then why do it at all?
Post by mainframetech
You were
unable to repeat the way the video explained it and so got it wrong.
Splicing the film in the fashion described was one of the methods
available in 1963. What Zapruder was doing is unimportant to the point
of the proof video. The film produced by Zapruder was manipulated in the
fashion described. So you failed on the first video and failed to mention
the second video. Hmm. Did that one stump you, or were you unable to
find anything wrong with it?
Did they manipulate Zapruder too so he described exactly what we would
later see in his film. Did they manipulate Bill Newman who was standing in
front of Zapruder and was the closest witness when the bullet struck the
head. He described the same kind of wound to the side of JFK's head. He
initially thought JFK' ear had been blown off. Was JFK's ear in the BOH?
Note that you failed to answer my question, and tried to change the
drift.
I explained to you that the background images which you think were spliced
with the foreground would not have been in the frame at a different time
and the best you could counter with is that it was just at a slightly
different time. Why would anyone go to the trouble of splicing the
foreground with the background to change them by a fraction of a second?
Post by mainframetech
That someone thought they saw something that didn't happen is what
you've been saying all along, while being unable to see a bullet hole in
the forehead of JFK!
That's because it's not obvious except when you need it to be obvious.
Post by mainframetech
The one or two people you mention don't add up to
over 39 eye witnesses, many of whom were medically trained.
None of whom placed the bullet hole where you did. But you keep pretending
they did.
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Now you've uttered another false opinion. Actually physics often come
into my comments.
Are you serious?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot make history by making opinions as if they were evidence.
I forgot. Only you are allowed to do that.
Post by mainframetech
You cannot change the facts either. The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have
said that on a number of occasions when you were repeating the same old
stuff over and over, like now.
I'm going to bookmark this and present it back to you then next time you
tell me how obvious it is there is a bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The quality of the photo is plenty good
enough to see the obvious bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it.
Since you can't see it, why are you describing it?
You make this too easy. There's just no sport in it. You just got done
telling me, "The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of
occasions" and in the very next sentence you describe it as "the obvious
bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it". I bookmarked it because I
thought I would need it for later reference but you made that completely
unnecessary. In consecutive sentences you completely contradicted yourself
by saying your bullet hole is both "NOT OBVIOUS" and then "obvious".
WRONG! I've also just got done telling you MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER
that you have to ENLARGE the photo to see the wound, and then it's
obvious. It is NOT obvious when you first encounter it, and you can ask
the medical panels about that.
Nothing shows up when the photo was enlarged that can't be seen at normal
size. The dark spot that you imagine to be a bullet hole just gets
larger.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Most people do. I know that from showing it to them.
Did you show them the obvious one or the one that was not obvious?
There's only one, and you damn well know it. Don't make a fool of
yourself.
I'll leave that to. You seem to be the master of that.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-15 01:51:38 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
WRONG again! I have to keep pointing out to you that you have just
called over 39 eyewitnesses who corroborate each other that 'they are all
lying'.
I'll bet you $1000 you can't find one of my posts in which I wrote that
about them.
Post by mainframetech
"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."
Remember that I stated that the wounds were limited at Parkland
hospital, but were expanded at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell.
Wrong on both counts. It was the same sized defect. The difference is the
forward portion of the defect had been closed by Jackie in an attempt to
keep his brains from oozing out of the top of his head. Parkland never saw
the full extent of the defect because nobody treated the head wound. All
they saw was the portion of the hole left by the piece that had been blown
completely away preventing Jackie from closing that portion of the wound.
Post by mainframetech
Note too
that the AR state that there was damage also in the occipital region.
That has never been in dispute. That was the portion which was apparent to
the witnesses at Parkland.
Post by mainframetech
That is the lower rear section of the head. That can also be described as
the BOH. And that's where the over 39 eyewitnesses saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH.
That's where they saw PART OF the large hole.
Post by mainframetech
The other parts where the hole was seen by the pathologists
were added by Humes and Boswell at Bethesda. The eyewitnesses saw the
damage before the Bethesda expansion happened.
This is where you just make shit up.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Yep, but OBVIOUSLY you were hoping for a greater turn than you got.
"Obviously" is the term you use when you have nothing to back up the
things you claim.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
WRONG! The "different time" was simply a bit of time different from
the 'current' time. There was not some major time distortion.
Then why do it at all?
Post by mainframetech
You were
unable to repeat the way the video explained it and so got it wrong.
Splicing the film in the fashion described was one of the methods
available in in 1963. What Zapruder was doing is unimportant to the point
of the proof video. The film produced by Zapruder was manipulated in the
fashion described. So you failed on the first video and failed to mention
the second video. Hmm. Did that one stump you, or were you unable to
find anything wrong with it?
Did they manipulate Zapruder too so he described exactly what we would
later see in his film. Did they manipulate Bill Newman who was standing in
front of Zapruder and was the closest witness when the bullet struck the
head. He described the same kind of wound to the side of JFK's head. He
initially thought JFK' ear had been blown off. Was JFK's ear in the BOH?
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Now you've uttered another false opinion. Actually physics often come
into my comments.
Are you serious?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot make history by making opinions as if they wee evidence.
I forgot. Only you are allowed to do that.
Post by mainframetech
You cannot change the facts either. The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have
said that on a number of occasions when you were repeating the same old
stuff over and over, like now.
I'm going to bookmark this and present it back to you then next time you
tell me how obvious it is there is a bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The quality of the photo is plenty good
enough to see the obvious bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it.
Since you can't see it, why are you describing it?
You make this too easy. There's just no sport in it. You just got done
telling me, "The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of
occasions" and in the very next sentence you describe it as "the obvious
bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it". I bookmarked it because I
thought I would need it for later reference but you made that completely
unnecessary. In consecutive sentences you completely contradicted yourself
by saying your bullet hole is both "NOT OBVIOUS" and then "obvious".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Most people do. I know that from showing it to them.
Did you show them the obvious one or the one that was not obvious?
Post by mainframetech
And listening to
their comments after they have looked. Which few here have tried to do,
probably because of the fear of finding out they've been wrong all these
years.
Trust me on this one. No LN fears any of your claims.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
You've forgotten the list of people that were witnesses to the wound
in question,
That was a different wound than the one you claim to see. They placed it
in different locations.
Post by mainframetech
and you ALWAYS try to forget them, for obvious reason. This
is a repetitive conversation, and so I'm outa here.
Why would I want to forget them when they contradict YOU.
Remember again: Lifton's theory is that the body was switched to a
separate casket on AF-1 and then taken away for clandestine surgery. THEN
it was brought to Bethesda for the autopsy. No secret surgery was done AT
Bethesda. Humes' mentioning surgery on the head during the autopsy (as
stated in the Sibert/O'Neill report) was, for Lifton, the key revelation
that this secret surgery had been done. If Humes had himself done the
surgery why would he mention that? He's revealing the conspiracy.

Our conspiracy advocate says the body was placed in a separate casket and
then taken DIRECTLY to Bethesda where Humes and Boswell altered the
wounds. A pre-autopsy surgery.

Why would they need to switch the body into a separate casket IF the
autopsy doctors were going to alter the wounds at Bethesda? There is no
need to do so. Just take the body that's in the ornamental casket that he
was placed in originally at Dallas to the morgue. There's no need for a
separate/different casket.

Lifton seems to me to be a smart man. I can't believe he believes this. As
to others.....
mainframetech
2018-06-16 05:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
You consider your splashing your windshield some proof of something?
I have so many questions that it's not even worth it to go into it. Your
word on splashes isn't going to make a hill of beans.
It illustrates that when a vehicle moves through a splash, it is moving
faster than the splash but it continues to be propelled forward while the
splash meets the resistance of the air and is slowed. Since it is moving
forward faster than the splash, it moves through it. This is true whether
that splash is rainwater in a pothole or the gore ejected from JFK's
head.
http://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU
The limo was slowed "almost to a stop", so there wasn't much speed for
Hargis to 'plow' through the mist, but he got a large amount of 'gore' and
other fluids hitting him from the blowout of the BOH.
There was no blowout in the BOH. It was in the upper right side as the AR
reported and which can be seen in the Z-film, the photos, and the
x-rays.
WRONG again! I have to keep pointing out to you that you have just
called over 39 eyewitnesses who corroborate each other that 'they are all
lying'.
I'll bet you $1000 you can't find one of my posts in which I wrote that
about them.
Post by mainframetech
"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."
Remember that I stated that the wounds were limited at Parkland
hospital, but were expanded at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell.
Wrong on both counts. It was the same sized defect. The difference is the
forward portion of the defect had been closed by Jackie in an attempt to
keep his brains from oozing out of the top of his head. Parkland never saw
the full extent of the defect because nobody treated the head wound. All
they saw was the portion of the hole left by the piece that had been blown
completely away preventing Jackie from closing that portion of the wound.
Post by mainframetech
Note too
that the AR state that there was damage also in the occipital region.
That has never been in dispute. That was the portion which was apparent to
the witnesses at Parkland.
Post by mainframetech
That is the lower rear section of the head. That can also be described as
the BOH. And that's where the over 39 eyewitnesses saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH.
That's where they saw PART OF the large hole.
Post by mainframetech
The other parts where the hole was seen by the pathologists
were added by Humes and Boswell at Bethesda. The eyewitnesses saw the
damage before the Bethesda expansion happened.
This is where you just make shit up.
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
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again, check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Hard to say, since some of them are hard to tell what's happening.
It's very easy to see what is happening. JFK was turned and leaning to his
left when the bullet struck him in the BOH. We have four sources which all
show the same thing. Leave it to you to think they might all be fakes.
To be sure of what I'm saying, I checked all 3 films. The Nix and
Muchmore films don't show much but JFK's head looking somewhat downward,
but NOT to the left to any great degree. So it may be your imagination
fooling you again, like with the bullet hole you can't see.
He was "turned to his left" to only a tiny degree. Go look again at
your infamous Z-film.
"to a tiny degree" still means he was turned and leaning to his left which
is what I said. I said nothing about the degree to which he was turning
and leaning.
Yep, but OBVIOUSLY you were hoping for a greater turn than you got.
"Obviously" is the term you use when you have nothing to back up the
things you claim.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
it wouldn't take a very large change in the position to let a bullet in
from the front side, though I favor the frontal shot. Possibly through
the windshield hole.
Naturally you are going to be as vague as possible because if you ever
chose a specific location for your phantom shooter you know it would get
shot down like a clay pigeon.
No problem. The facts bear me out.
You mean your alternate facts.
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
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
WRONG again! You really have to work on your memory. It's not
helping you at all. I was speaking of the videos that I listed for you,
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Oh, it was on a goofy youtube video, not a goofy website. My mistake.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Umm, try using the plural, since there are 2 of them. And your
response suggests that you didn't look at them, probably out of fear that
they would prove you wrong after years of belief.
Of course I looked at them which is how I know they are goofy. Take the
first film. It claims the limo was spliced together with background images
taken at a different time. That really is amazing given that Zapruder was
panning his camera to track the limo and those background images would not
have appeared in in his film at a different time. They were only in the
background when the limo was in front of them. Pretty elementary but I
guess you never stopped to think about that. That is all that is really
necessary to blow that first video out of the water.
WRONG! The "different time" was simply a bit of time different from
the 'current' time. There was not some major time distortion.
Then why do it at all?
Post by mainframetech
You were
unable to repeat the way the video explained it and so got it wrong.
Splicing the film in the fashion described was one of the methods
available in in 1963. What Zapruder was doing is unimportant to the point
of the proof video. The film produced by Zapruder was manipulated in the
fashion described. So you failed on the first video and failed to mention
the second video. Hmm. Did that one stump you, or were you unable to
find anything wrong with it?
Did they manipulate Zapruder too so he described exactly what we would
later see in his film. Did they manipulate Bill Newman who was standing in
front of Zapruder and was the closest witness when the bullet struck the
head. He described the same kind of wound to the side of JFK's head. He
initially thought JFK' ear had been blown off. Was JFK's ear in the BOH?
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
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Depends on the situation.
There is no situation in which your opinion regarding forensic medicine or
wound ballistics would carry more weight than DiMaio's.
I don't have any opinions in "forensic medicine" or "wound
ballistics". I do repeat the opinions of others on occasion, and use
physics and common sense that everyone knows to make a point though.
You obviously don't use DiMaio's opinion because he believes JFK was shot
from behind by a lone assassin. The curious thing is whose opinions you
are repeating if not your own. Physics and common sense never enter into
the equation when you are spouting your opinions.
Now you've uttered another false opinion. Actually physics often come
into my comments.
Are you serious?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it were a programming bug, I'd take
mine. If it was what was seen in an ENLARGEMET of a 'leaked' autopsy
photo, I'd take mine then as well, since he didn't ENLARGE it.
If the wound is as obvious as you claim, why does it need to be enlarged.
When you enlarge the dark spot which you think is a bullet hole, all you
get is a larger dark spot. It doesn't produce greater clarity.
You cannot make history by making opinions as if they wee evidence.
I forgot. Only you are allowed to do that.
Post by mainframetech
You cannot change the facts either. The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have
said that on a number of occasions when you were repeating the same old
stuff over and over, like now.
I'm going to bookmark this and present it back to you then next time you
tell me how obvious it is there is a bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The quality of the photo is plenty good
enough to see the obvious bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it.
Since you can't see it, why are you describing it?
You make this too easy. There's just no sport in it. You just got done
telling me, "The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of
occasions" and in the very next sentence you describe it as "the obvious
bullet hole and the fleshy rim around it". I bookmarked it because I
thought I would need it for later reference but you made that completely
unnecessary. In consecutive sentences you completely contradicted yourself
by saying your bullet hole is both "NOT OBVIOUS" and then "obvious".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You cannot see the bullet hole for some odd reason,
Few people do.
Most people do. I know that from showing it to them.
Did you show them the obvious one or the one that was not obvious?
Post by mainframetech
And listening to
their comments after they have looked. Which few here have tried to do,
probably because of the fear of finding out they've been wrong all these
years.
Trust me on this one. No LN fears any of your claims.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and I'm sick of trying to get you to see it.
I guess you'll have to settle for the other two people in this newsgroup
who claim to see it.
You've forgotten the list of people that were witnesses to the wound
in question,
That was a different wound than the one you claim to see. They placed it
in different locations.
Post by mainframetech
and you ALWAYS try to forget them, for obvious reason. This
is a repetitive conversation, and so I'm outa here.
Why would I want to forget them when they contradict YOU.
Remember again: Lifton's theory is that the body was switched to a
separate casket on AF-1 and then taken away for clandestine surgery. THEN
it was brought to Bethesda for the autopsy. No secret surgery was done AT
Bethesda. Humes' mentioning surgery on the head during the autopsy (as
stated in the Sibert/O'Neill report) was, for Lifton, the key revelation
that this secret surgery had been done. If Humes had himself done the
surgery why would he mention that? He's revealing the conspiracy.
I believe your scenario is incorrect. And we (most CTs) are onto
Douglas Horne who was 10 years on the ARRB and heard most of the testimony
from most of the people in the case. Horne found proof for many of the
conjectures of Lifton, whose work as indeed groundbreaking.

When the body was helicoptered to Bethesda from the landing, which was
the original plan while the group was in the air in AF1, it was brought
into the Morgue at the back of Bethesda at 6:35pm as per Sgt. Boyajian's
after action report. Humes and Boswell were waiting for it on the loading
dock. They went in and began the clandestine work immediately. Their
orders included searching for and removing any bullets in the body, to
eliminate the chance that one of them would prove there was another gun at
the killing, which would imply a conspiracy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Our conspiracy advocate says the body was placed in a separate casket and
then taken DIRECTLY to Bethesda where Humes and Boswell altered the
wounds. A pre-autopsy surgery.
Why would they need to switch the body into a separate casket IF the
autopsy doctors were going to alter the wounds at Bethesda? There is no
need to do so. Just take the body that's in the ornamental casket that he
was placed in originally at Dallas to the morgue. There's no need for a
separate/different casket.
I'll explain the separate casket. The body started at Parkland in the
Brass casket. On the plane a switch was made into a military SHIPPING
casket, which was taken by Helicopter to Bethesda. The reason given was
that the press and other onlookers would follow the Bronze casket and
Jackie wouldn't have to deal with them. The real reason was that they
wanted to get the body to Bethesda and give Humes time to do his
clandestine work. The body went by Helicopter, and the empty casket went
by road. The body got to Bethesda 42 minutes earlier than the empty
casket. That gave Humes and Boswell time to do what they had to do, which
was remove any bullets and to change whatever they could to make it look
more like JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind.

Before the body was worked on, there was only the blowout at the BOH,
which was the exit from the bullet that entered at the forehead/temple
point. There was also the bullet hole in the forehead. As well, there
was a bullet in the throat, probably stopped by the spine, and a bullet
hole in the upper back. JFK was the target for many shooters.

There is much more detail about this time period, but the above covers
your concerns.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Lifton seems to me to be a smart man. I can't believe he believes this. As
to others.....
You should start a new thread, I think Google Groups can't handle them
this long.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-17 01:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Remember again: Lifton's theory is that the body was switched to a
separate casket on AF-1 and then taken away for clandestine surgery. THEN
it was brought to Bethesda for the autopsy. No secret surgery was done AT
Bethesda. Humes' mentioning surgery on the head during the autopsy (as
stated in the Sibert/O'Neill report) was, for Lifton, the key revelation
that this secret surgery had been done. If Humes had himself done the
surgery why would he mention that? He's revealing the conspiracy.
I believe your scenario is incorrect. And we (most CTs) are onto
Douglas Horne who was 10 years on the ARRB and heard most of the testimony
from most of the people in the case. Horne found proof for many of the
conjectures of Lifton, whose work as indeed groundbreaking.
Horne found a whole lot of doo-doo. If there was any validity to his
claims he would be a household name. As it is, he has few disciples, even
among the CTs.
Post by mainframetech
When the body was helicoptered to Bethesda from the landing, which was
the original plan while the group was in the air in AF1, it was brought
into the Morgue at the back of Bethesda at 6:35pm as per Sgt. Boyajian's
after action report. Humes and Boswell were waiting for it on the loading
dock. They went in and began the clandestine work immediately. Their
orders included searching for and removing any bullets in the body, to
eliminate the chance that one of them would prove there was another gun at
the killing, which would imply a conspiracy.
An example of the doo-doo of which I spoke.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Our conspiracy advocate says the body was placed in a separate casket and
then taken DIRECTLY to Bethesda where Humes and Boswell altered the
wounds. A pre-autopsy surgery.
Why would they need to switch the body into a separate casket IF the
autopsy doctors were going to alter the wounds at Bethesda? There is no
need to do so. Just take the body that's in the ornamental casket that he
was placed in originally at Dallas to the morgue. There's no need for a
separate/different casket.
I'll explain the separate casket. The body started at Parkland in the
Brass casket. On the plane a switch was made into a military SHIPPING
casket, which was taken by Helicopter to Bethesda. The reason given was
that the press and other onlookers would follow the Bronze casket and
Jackie wouldn't have to deal with them. The real reason was that they
wanted to get the body to Bethesda and give Humes time to do his
clandestine work. The body went by Helicopter, and the empty casket went
by road. The body got to Bethesda 42 minutes earlier than the empty
casket. That gave Humes and Boswell time to do what they had to do, which
was remove any bullets and to change whatever they could to make it look
more like JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind.
That excuse doesn't even make sense. Jackie and the ornamental casket rode
in the same ambulance. How would switching JFK's body into a shipping
casket spare Jackie anything?
Post by mainframetech
Before the body was worked on, there was only the blowout at the BOH,
which was the exit from the bullet that entered at the forehead/temple
point. There was also the bullet hole in the forehead. As well, there
was a bullet in the throat, probably stopped by the spine, and a bullet
hole in the upper back. JFK was the target for many shooters.
You are putting your gullibility on full display.
Post by mainframetech
There is much more detail about this time period, but the above covers
your concerns.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Lifton seems to me to be a smart man. I can't believe he believes this. As
to others.....
You should start a new thread, I think Google Groups can't handle them
this long.
All you have to do is trim the deadwood from the top of the post as I have
done here. I use Google Group too. There is no reason to retain comments
that begin with "> > > > > > > > > > > >". Keeping those with four or
fewer ">" should be more than enough to maintain context.

Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:43:29 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
We weren't talking about the ease of the shot. We were talking about
Hargis moving forward into the cloud of gore. You need to pay
attention.
Try it yourself. Hargis was moving forward only slightly, since he
was pacing the limo, which had slowed almost to a stop. Therefore he
didn't move into a "cloud of gore". Again, if the Z-film is to be
believed, there was only a misting of blood, whereas there was a whole lot
of "gore" that came out of the BOH and struck Hargis ho was behind and to
the left. You'll find many interesting bits of information from Jean Hill
http://youtu.be/FtuUWI1i010
I have driven through rain filled potholes while slowing for a stop sign
and still I drove through the splash that resulted in my windshield
getting soaked. You don't have to be moving very fast to move into a
splash or in the case of Hargis, a cloud of blood and brain matter.
How very scientific of you. Show us your test results.
Anecdotes are not proof.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Wow you really zeroed in on it. If it was somewhat to the side, shouldn't
the tail splash have been somewhat to the side? You can't even pick a
theoretical spot for the shooter that works for you.
You're still glued to the Z-film, but that's not necessarily the
right view. It has been altered. If JFK's head was really pointing more
at the GK, the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area would be explained.
Again., check with Jean Hill, who saw a man trying to escape from the GK
just after she saw a flash and smoke there.
Oh, so now the changed JFK's head position in the Z-film. Did they alter
the Nix and Muchmore film's and the Moorman photos too since those all
showed JFK's head in the same orientation as the Z-film, turn and tilted
toward Jackie.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Not enough to convince me that happened. Z-film alteration is just the
excuse you came up with because the Z-film refutes everything you want to
believe.
Naturally you've had nothing to say when presented with the evidence
of the alteration of the Z-film. That must mean you were impressed with
the proofs.
What you presented was not evidence no matter how badly you want to
believe it was. Just some goofy speculation you read on some kook
website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
Is it my opinion that DiMaio believes that the head shot hit JFK from
behind? Is it my opinion that DiMaio doesn't believe that there is an
entrance wound in the "forehead/temple"? That's something you cooked up by
misinterpreting his work.
WRONG! Check back to see what you said that elicited my comment.
You were offering an opinion about my "uninformed opinions", and my
"cooking up" things. So you get my comment about your opinions. Try and
stay with it here.
I've offered DiMaio's opinion. You have offered your opinion. Which one do
you think carries more weight?
Phony Argument by Authority.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Do you think it makes a very compelling argument that an amateur such as
yourself has figured something out based on looking at one photo than
EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen far more and knows far more
was unable to figure out? Do you think anyone with an ounce of common
sense would take your word over theirs?
First, I'm not the only person to find the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
None of the others are any more qualified than you.
Dr. Lawrence Angel. He saw all the original evidence.
YOU did not.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've encountered it mentioned in other forums, and
of course, it was seen by a list of people in the case, which I've laid
out for you.
Those people didn't describe it where you claim it to be. You have put it
in a very specific location and none of the descriptions you've offered it
matches that location.
Post by mainframetech
As to common sense, I've told you that I'm not here to
convince everyone to my way of thinking, but to lay out my thoughts and
discoveries and let folks make their own decisions.
I'm glad that you don't care if anyone is buying your nonsense because I
seriously doubt anyone is.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Post by bigdog
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
I guess that was a stumper?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
No comment here either?
What's to say? I've made my comments and your copying Rahn won't
change it.
I copied Rahn's statement to demonstrate to you that he believes as I do
that Oswald was the lone assassin which demonstrates how silly it was for
you to accuse me of disparaging him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics.
They have that too and have far more training than you do and got to see
far more evidence than you have. Why do you suppose they ALL came up with
a different answer than you have?
Simple, they had an answer already given to them in the AR and they
didn't think to go around and ENLARGE every photo they saw.
Oh, so you think none of them bothered to rely on their years of training
and instead just accepted what they were told. Even Dr. Michael Baden who
testified before the HSCA. Do you think he was just telling them what he
Baden lied to rubber stamp the WC.
Post by bigdog
had been told? Even Cyril Wecht who went on to become a vocal proponent of
a second gunman while still agreeing with the finding that JFK was struck
twice from behind.
Not just twice from behind.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's why I can correct you so often.
You aren't correcting me. You are trying to correct teams of highly
qualified forensic medical examiners and making yourself look very foolish
in the process. You would be wise to simply accept the unanimous verdict
of all these professionals rather than relying on your own amateurish
opinions. But then that would make it impossible to believe the things you
want to believe.
LOL! Hard to look foolish talking about a bullet hole that can be
seen by everyone that looks for it except you.
There are exactly TWO people other than yourself who claim to see a bullet
hole there. John McAdams told you fairly recently there is no bullet hole
in the forehead. Others have told you that in the past as well yet you
continue to pretend those people are all on your side of this issue.
Oops. McAdams almost admitted that there was a bullet hole in the
forehead. Explain how that could be a shot from behind.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
I guess you don't like when I point out how you go back and forth from
telling us your imaginary bullet hole is either very obvious or hard to
see.
Try using your brains to interpret what you see.
What I see has nothing to do with how you've waffled on the question of
how obvious your imaginary bullet hole is.
We know you can't see the autopsy photographs.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 23:44:15 UTC
Reply
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
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
LOL! Nitpicking again! 'Almost a stop' makes shooting a moving target
easier to do. Pay attention to the meaning behind the phrase.
OK, then just saw slowing down. Do you claim that was just a poor
reaction to what was happening or wa always planned?
The turn onto ELm was not a last might decision. It was always planned.
But that was a slowdown to about 3 MPH. Wouldn't that make it easier to
shoot at the target? Some conspiracy believers claim that the turn onto
Elm was added on specifically to make an easier shot.
Yet apparently no shots were fired during that turn.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Somewhere forward of the limo. Maybe to the side somewhat.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
How many times have you been told that the Z-film was altered?
Sheesh!
Nonsense. Then never mention it again. If you claim that the limo slowed
down I can counter-claim that the Zapruder film was altered to only make
it LOOK like a slow down.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Now you're once again trying to win an argument by using opinions.
They also rely on a phony Argument by Authority.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Yep, not so strange that they ignored trying everything on the photos.
Ahem. They were NOT ALLOWED to SEE the autopsy photos.
Post by mainframetech
They believed the AR, which was full of lies. I could have saved many
years of wasted time. <belly laugh>
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
Post by mainframetech
But I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
No need. I have normal intelligence and knowledge of physics. That's
why I can correct you so often.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
This is repetitive and you know it. I'm outa here.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 13:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
Post by bigdog
Do you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
Post by bigdog
Since you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
Post by bigdog
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'. But the mistake there is the
For the record, I know Ken and consider him a friend and can confirm
that he is a staunch WC defender.
Post by mainframetech
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
Easy to overlook evidence when you destroy it or bury it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Also you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
There are a few reasons why that would be, but there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
Burt it went in only about an inch or so. In the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.
The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.
Chris
Loading...