Discussion:
Questions for those who believe the headshot was not fired from
Add Reply
bigdog
2017-06-11 23:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.

1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
the autopsy report:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."

So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.

2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 16:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
Moi? Depends on what you are calling the wounds. If you mean some
mystery wound in the back of the head, there is none and no photos of
it. If you admit the wound above the right eye, yet there is external
beveling, which indicates that it is an entrance wound not an exit
wound. If you want to make it an exit wound you create a problem for
yourself if you connect it with a straight line to whichever wound of
the month you make up for the rear of the head, either the WC wound or
the HSCA wound. Show me your trajectory.


You know nothing about bones. You can't show me a wound in the parietal
bone. You just made that up from your imagination because it sounds cool.
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
By whom? Some drunk off the street?
Post by bigdog
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
The fracture lines are real because the skull fractured. It fractured
first in the front where the bullet entered and then the fractures went
around to the back of the skull. Contrecoup.
Bill Clarke
2017-06-13 13:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
Moi? Depends on what you are calling the wounds. If you mean some
mystery wound in the back of the head, there is none and no photos of
it. If you admit the wound above the right eye, yet there is external
beveling, which indicates that it is an entrance wound not an exit
wound. If you want to make it an exit wound you create a problem for
yourself if you connect it with a straight line to whichever wound of
the month you make up for the rear of the head, either the WC wound or
the HSCA wound. Show me your trajectory.
Why? You aren't qualified to discuss trajectory, Marsh. It is obvious
you do not understand the basics. Your,"connect it with a straight line"
also demonstrates your lack of understanding about bullet wounds, wound
channels, and bullet paths. Who said it went in a straight line.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 00:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
Moi? Depends on what you are calling the wounds. If you mean some
mystery wound in the back of the head, there is none and no photos of
it. If you admit the wound above the right eye, yet there is external
beveling, which indicates that it is an entrance wound not an exit
wound. If you want to make it an exit wound you create a problem for
yourself if you connect it with a straight line to whichever wound of
the month you make up for the rear of the head, either the WC wound or
the HSCA wound. Show me your trajectory.
Why? You aren't qualified to discuss trajectory, Marsh. It is obvious
you do not understand the basics. Your,"connect it with a straight line"
also demonstrates your lack of understanding about bullet wounds, wound
channels, and bullet paths. Who said it went in a straight line.
Excuse me, son. I am not trying to connect wounds with a straight line. I
am critiquing those who did, such as the WC and the HSCA. Their insistence
on straight lines caused them to lie about the wounds. Your talk is
conspiracy kook talk where a bullet can make s U-turn in the body and a
Garrison turn in mid-air to hit Connally.
Bill Clarke
2017-06-14 19:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
Moi? Depends on what you are calling the wounds. If you mean some
mystery wound in the back of the head, there is none and no photos of
it. If you admit the wound above the right eye, yet there is external
beveling, which indicates that it is an entrance wound not an exit
wound. If you want to make it an exit wound you create a problem for
yourself if you connect it with a straight line to whichever wound of
the month you make up for the rear of the head, either the WC wound or
the HSCA wound. Show me your trajectory.
Why? You aren't qualified to discuss trajectory, Marsh. It is obvious
you do not understand the basics. Your,"connect it with a straight line"
also demonstrates your lack of understanding about bullet wounds, wound
channels, and bullet paths. Who said it went in a straight line.
Excuse me, son. I am not trying to connect wounds with a straight line. I
am critiquing those who did, such as the WC and the HSCA. Their insistence
on straight lines caused them to lie about the wounds. Your talk is
conspiracy kook talk where a bullet can make s U-turn in the body and a
Garrison turn in mid-air to hit Connally.
If you correctly place the jump seat Connally was sitting in you don't
have all this crap. But then it wouldn't be much fun would it?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
Moi? Depends on what you are calling the wounds. If you mean some
mystery wound in the back of the head, there is none and no photos of
it. If you admit the wound above the right eye, yet there is external
beveling, which indicates that it is an entrance wound not an exit
wound. If you want to make it an exit wound you create a problem for
yourself if you connect it with a straight line to whichever wound of
the month you make up for the rear of the head, either the WC wound or
the HSCA wound. Show me your trajectory.
Why? You aren't qualified to discuss trajectory, Marsh. It is obvious
you do not understand the basics. Your,"connect it with a straight line"
also demonstrates your lack of understanding about bullet wounds, wound
channels, and bullet paths. Who said it went in a straight line.
Excuse me, son. I am not trying to connect wounds with a straight line. I
am critiquing those who did, such as the WC and the HSCA. Their insistence
on straight lines caused them to lie about the wounds. Your talk is
conspiracy kook talk where a bullet can make s U-turn in the body and a
Garrison turn in mid-air to hit Connally.
If you correctly place the jump seat Connally was sitting in you don't
have all this crap. But then it wouldn't be much fun would it?
I am the one who has the most accurate drawings of the limo and the
positions of the 2 men.

It was the WC which needed to lie. OH, and Dale Myers.
OH, and the the HSCA. Did I leave anyone out?
bigdog
2017-06-12 16:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Apparently I failed to complete the title of this thread. The questions
are aimed at those who don't believe the head shot was fired from behind
JFK. I hope the questions posed made that clear.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-13 01:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Apparently I failed to complete the title of this thread. The questions
are aimed at those who don't believe the head shot was fired from behind
JFK. I hope the questions posed made that clear.
Don't you just hate it when the subject line gets truncated? Don't blame
it on McAdams. Don't even try to blame it on Google. UseNet has rules.
It looks fine when you are composing your message, but when it gets sent
to UseNet, UseNet sees that long subject line and says no way sucker and
chops it down to size.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036
http://hack.org/mc/texts/how-to-work-with-usenet.txt

Use Descriptive Titles.

The subject line of an article is there to enable a person with a limited
amount of time to decide whether or not to read your article. Tell people
what the article is about before they read it. A title like "Car for
Sale" to rec.autos does not help as much as "66 MG Midget for sale:
Beaverton OR." Don't expect people to read your article to find out what
it is about because many of them won't bother. Some sites truncate the
length of the subject line to 40 characters so keep your subjects short
and to the point.
BT George
2017-06-14 14:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Apparently I failed to complete the title of this thread. The questions
are aimed at those who don't believe the head shot was fired from behind
JFK. I hope the questions posed made that clear.
No you probably didn't fail to complete it. The system probably just
truncated your subject at a certain point. I know Google Groups does that
for sure.
bigdog
2017-06-15 00:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Apparently I failed to complete the title of this thread. The questions
are aimed at those who don't believe the head shot was fired from behind
JFK. I hope the questions posed made that clear.
No you probably didn't fail to complete it. The system probably just
truncated your subject at a certain point. I know Google Groups does that
for sure.
I do use Google Groups and it's nice to know I'm not as senile as it
appeared. I'll keep this in mind for future threads I start. Less is more.
mainframetech
2017-06-12 23:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
Post by bigdog
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
I dispute that the AR was written up from what Humes actually saw,
rather than what he was ordered to write.
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Oddly, the fractures in the X-ray don't seem to match the lines in the
photo that was used by Dr. Cummings. And the path of fine particles that
were supposedly from an FMJ bullet that should not have burst into fine
particles might have been from the front to the rear, rather than the
opposite.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-13 18:44:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
I dispute that the AR was written up from what Humes actually saw,
rather than what he was ordered to write.
All three prosectors signed the report which indicated inward beveling in
the rear skull wall and outward beveling in the parietal bone fragment
recovered from Dallas. The review panels saw the photos of the same and
concurred with the finding expressed in the AR. So on what basis do you
dispute that there was inward beveling in the rear of the skull and
outward beveling in the parietal bone.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Oddly, the fractures in the X-ray don't seem to match the lines in the
photo that was used by Dr. Cummings. And the path of fine particles that
were supposedly from an FMJ bullet that should not have burst into fine
particles might have been from the front to the rear, rather than the
opposite.
The fracture lines wouldn't show in photograph since they were covered by
scalp. The fracture lines showed in the x-rays. Exactly the kind of
fracture pattern Cummings described. Fracture lines radiating out from the
entrance wound and concentric fracture lines roughly perpendicular to
those radiating lines. So are you going to pretend you are so much more
knowledgeable about gun shot wounds to the head than Dr. Cummings?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 13:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
I dispute that the AR was written up from what Humes actually saw,
rather than what he was ordered to write.
All three prosectors signed the report which indicated inward beveling in
the rear skull wall and outward beveling in the parietal bone fragment
recovered from Dallas. The review panels saw the photos of the same and
concurred with the finding expressed in the AR. So on what basis do you
dispute that there was inward beveling in the rear of the skull and
outward beveling in the parietal bone.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Oddly, the fractures in the X-ray don't seem to match the lines in the
photo that was used by Dr. Cummings. And the path of fine particles that
were supposedly from an FMJ bullet that should not have burst into fine
particles might have been from the front to the rear, rather than the
opposite.
The fracture lines wouldn't show in photograph since they were covered by
scalp. The fracture lines showed in the x-rays. Exactly the kind of
fracture pattern Cummings described. Fracture lines radiating out from the
entrance wound and concentric fracture lines roughly perpendicular to
those radiating lines. So are you going to pretend you are so much more
knowledgeable about gun shot wounds to the head than Dr. Cummings?
False. There were no concentric circles and you can't show them to me.
There were plates.
mainframetech
2017-06-14 21:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
I dispute that the AR was written up from what Humes actually saw,
rather than what he was ordered to write.
All three prosectors signed the report which indicated inward beveling in
the rear skull wall and outward beveling in the parietal bone fragment
recovered from Dallas. The review panels saw the photos of the same and
concurred with the finding expressed in the AR. So on what basis do you
dispute that there was inward beveling in the rear of the skull and
outward beveling in the parietal bone.
Whatever Humes wrote up, the others were ordered to sign, so it
doesn't matter what he wrote. The conclusions the prosectors made DURING
the autopsy count for me. They were seen and heard then, not later.

Now what about the quotes for the above, or the attribution?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Oddly, the fractures in the X-ray don't seem to match the lines in the
photo that was used by Dr. Cummings. And the path of fine particles that
were supposedly from an FMJ bullet that should not have burst into fine
particles might have been from the front to the rear, rather than the
opposite.
The fracture lines wouldn't show in photograph since they were covered by
scalp. The fracture lines showed in the x-rays. Exactly the kind of
fracture pattern Cummings described. Fracture lines radiating out from the
entrance wound and concentric fracture lines roughly perpendicular to
those radiating lines. So are you going to pretend you are so much more
knowledgeable about gun shot wounds to the head than Dr. Cummings?
WRONG! I'm talking about the fracture pattern that Cummings used to
point out his theory. That pattern on a skull didn't match the pattern in
the JFK X-rays. Check it out.

And since it's known that the kill shot was from the front, the
striking of the skull by a bullet from behind didn't happen, so any
blowout of the skull had to be from a shot from the front, which makes
more sense anyway, based on the physics of the situation. Small entry
hole, large exit hole.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-15 17:46:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
I dispute that the AR was written up from what Humes actually saw,
rather than what he was ordered to write.
All three prosectors signed the report which indicated inward beveling in
the rear skull wall and outward beveling in the parietal bone fragment
recovered from Dallas. The review panels saw the photos of the same and
concurred with the finding expressed in the AR. So on what basis do you
dispute that there was inward beveling in the rear of the skull and
outward beveling in the parietal bone.
Whatever Humes wrote up, the others were ordered to sign,
Pure bullshit from you. Not a scrap of evidence to support that charge.
Post by mainframetech
so it
doesn't matter what he wrote. The conclusions the prosectors made DURING
the autopsy count for me. They were seen and heard then, not later.
So once again you give more credibility to ideas they floated before they
had all the information than to the conclusions that were written in their
final report after they had gathered all the available data. I never cease
to be amazed at the way the conspiracy mind works.
Post by mainframetech
Now what about the quotes for the above, or the attribution?
Both were given in the OP which is still there for you to read if you want
or you can continue to make yourself look foolish by asking for what has
already been given.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Oddly, the fractures in the X-ray don't seem to match the lines in the
photo that was used by Dr. Cummings. And the path of fine particles that
were supposedly from an FMJ bullet that should not have burst into fine
particles might have been from the front to the rear, rather than the
opposite.
The fracture lines wouldn't show in photograph since they were covered by
scalp. The fracture lines showed in the x-rays. Exactly the kind of
fracture pattern Cummings described. Fracture lines radiating out from the
entrance wound and concentric fracture lines roughly perpendicular to
those radiating lines. So are you going to pretend you are so much more
knowledgeable about gun shot wounds to the head than Dr. Cummings?
WRONG! I'm talking about the fracture pattern that Cummings used to
point out his theory. That pattern on a skull didn't match the pattern in
the JFK X-rays. Check it out.
What makes you think he was trying to replicate JFK's fractures. That
appears to me to be nothing more than a generic representation of what
happens when a bullet strikes the skull wall. That model skull didn't
include the fracture lines which run parallel to the radiating fracture
lines which is another indication he was not trying to represent JFK's
exact fracture pattern.
Post by mainframetech
And since it's known that the kill shot was from the front,
No such thing is known because it didn't happen and anyone who understands
forensic medicine or is smart enough to trust the judgement of those that
do knows it didn't happen.
Post by mainframetech
the
striking of the skull by a bullet from behind didn't happen,
So tell us why there is inward beveling in the rear skull wall? That was
one of the key questions posed in the OP which to date you have dodged.
Post by mainframetech
so any
blowout of the skull had to be from a shot from the front, which makes
more sense anyway, based on the physics of the situation. Small entry
hole, large exit hole.
That paragraph illustrates you have no clue as to the actual damage
sustained by JFK. Earlier today I read your cite of Lipsey's testimony in
which he said it was quite obvious that a bullet had entered the back of
JFK's head, exited from the right side of his head, and blown out the
entire right side of JFK's head. I'll bet you didn't read that either
before you posted the link to it.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 14:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
I dispute that the AR was written up from what Humes actually saw,
rather than what he was ordered to write.
All three prosectors signed the report which indicated inward beveling in
the rear skull wall and outward beveling in the parietal bone fragment
recovered from Dallas. The review panels saw the photos of the same and
concurred with the finding expressed in the AR. So on what basis do you
dispute that there was inward beveling in the rear of the skull and
outward beveling in the parietal bone.
Whatever Humes wrote up, the others were ordered to sign,
Pure bullshit from you. Not a scrap of evidence to support that charge.
Post by mainframetech
so it
doesn't matter what he wrote. The conclusions the prosectors made DURING
the autopsy count for me. They were seen and heard then, not later.
So once again you give more credibility to ideas they floated before they
had all the information than to the conclusions that were written in their
final report after they had gathered all the available data. I never cease
to be amazed at the way the conspiracy mind works.
Post by mainframetech
Now what about the quotes for the above, or the attribution?
Both were given in the OP which is still there for you to read if you want
or you can continue to make yourself look foolish by asking for what has
already been given.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Oddly, the fractures in the X-ray don't seem to match the lines in the
photo that was used by Dr. Cummings. And the path of fine particles that
were supposedly from an FMJ bullet that should not have burst into fine
particles might have been from the front to the rear, rather than the
opposite.
The fracture lines wouldn't show in photograph since they were covered by
scalp. The fracture lines showed in the x-rays. Exactly the kind of
fracture pattern Cummings described. Fracture lines radiating out from the
entrance wound and concentric fracture lines roughly perpendicular to
those radiating lines. So are you going to pretend you are so much more
knowledgeable about gun shot wounds to the head than Dr. Cummings?
WRONG! I'm talking about the fracture pattern that Cummings used to
point out his theory. That pattern on a skull didn't match the pattern in
the JFK X-rays. Check it out.
What makes you think he was trying to replicate JFK's fractures. That
appears to me to be nothing more than a generic representation of what
happens when a bullet strikes the skull wall. That model skull didn't
include the fracture lines which run parallel to the radiating fracture
lines which is another indication he was not trying to represent JFK's
exact fracture pattern.
Post by mainframetech
And since it's known that the kill shot was from the front,
No such thing is known because it didn't happen and anyone who understands
forensic medicine or is smart enough to trust the judgement of those that
do knows it didn't happen.
Post by mainframetech
the
striking of the skull by a bullet from behind didn't happen,
So tell us why there is inward beveling in the rear skull wall? That was
one of the key questions posed in the OP which to date you have dodged.
Post by mainframetech
so any
blowout of the skull had to be from a shot from the front, which makes
more sense anyway, based on the physics of the situation. Small entry
hole, large exit hole.
That paragraph illustrates you have no clue as to the actual damage
sustained by JFK. Earlier today I read your cite of Lipsey's testimony in
which he said it was quite obvious that a bullet had entered the back of
JFK's head, exited from the right side of his head, and blown out the
entire right side of JFK's head. I'll bet you didn't read that either
before you posted the link to it.
So you claim that if one doctor had an OPINION, that makes it ipso facto
a fact?
mainframetech
2017-06-16 14:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.

The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-17 03:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.
The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.
You ought to run if all you are going to do is make factually challenged
statements. The last sentence of that first paragraph stated that the
quote that followed came from the AR. What follows is the last line from
that paragraph and the quote that followed.

Quoting from the autopsy report:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."

So contrary to your ridiculous claims, I gave the attribution to the
autopsy report and followed it with a verbatim quote from it. Since you
are unable to address the questions asked it seems you chose to instead
try to muddy the waters with your false claims. The simple fact is I
pointed out that there was inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear
as well as radiating fracture lines, both proof positive that the entry
wound was in the BOH and you simply cannot deal with those facts.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 03:10:32 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
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.
The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.
You ought to run if all you are going to do is make factually challenged
statements. The last sentence of that first paragraph stated that the
quote that followed came from the AR. What follows is the last line from
that paragraph and the quote that followed.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So contrary to your ridiculous claims, I gave the attribution to the
autopsy report and followed it with a verbatim quote from it. Since you
are unable to address the questions asked it seems you chose to instead
try to muddy the waters with your false claims. The simple fact is I
pointed out that there was inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear
as well as radiating fracture lines, both proof positive that the entry
wound was in the BOH and you simply cannot deal with those facts.
What do you want to know? Have you ever seen the autopsy photos?
mainframetech
2017-06-18 23:16:23 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
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.
The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.
You ought to run if all you are going to do is make factually challenged
statements. The last sentence of that first paragraph stated that the
quote that followed came from the AR. What follows is the last line from
that paragraph and the quote that followed.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So contrary to your ridiculous claims, I gave the attribution to the
autopsy report and followed it with a verbatim quote from it. Since you
are unable to address the questions asked it seems you chose to instead
try to muddy the waters with your false claims. The simple fact is I
pointed out that there was inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear
as well as radiating fracture lines, both proof positive that the entry
wound was in the BOH and you simply cannot deal with those facts.
Normally one does not have to reads a complete paragraph to find the
attribution for a quote, or a section copied from somewhere that begins
with a number. Was it your number, or some number you copied from
somewhere? Who knows. And of course, if one simply reads the first
paragraph it sounds like someone that knows what they're talking about,
which you don't. So an OBVIOUS attribution would be useful, not one
embedded somewhere in a paragraph.

And as to "muddying the waters" the AR is a good example of that
already. If you had more knowledge of the body you might have realized
that Humes left a messy AR there. When he made it clear that the "pleura
was INTACT" it cleaned up the whole thing that he was forced into writing.
I'm surprised the whole list of medical 'experts' didn't bother to look it
over more carefully and pick up on that comment. It says that the bullet
didn't get past the pleura, which was the truth. Humes' secret way of
telling the truth against the orders to lie.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-19 17:11:20 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
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.
The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.
You ought to run if all you are going to do is make factually challenged
statements. The last sentence of that first paragraph stated that the
quote that followed came from the AR. What follows is the last line from
that paragraph and the quote that followed.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So contrary to your ridiculous claims, I gave the attribution to the
autopsy report and followed it with a verbatim quote from it. Since you
are unable to address the questions asked it seems you chose to instead
try to muddy the waters with your false claims. The simple fact is I
pointed out that there was inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear
as well as radiating fracture lines, both proof positive that the entry
wound was in the BOH and you simply cannot deal with those facts.
Normally one does not have to reads a complete paragraph to find the
attribution for a quote, or a section copied from somewhere that begins
with a number. Was it your number, or some number you copied from
somewhere? Who knows. And of course, if one simply reads the first
paragraph it sounds like someone that knows what they're talking about,
which you don't. So an OBVIOUS attribution would be useful, not one
embedded somewhere in a paragraph.
Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself. You have as much as admitted that
you didn't bother to read the entire post before responding. I'll take it
as a compliment that you thought the first part of that paragraph which
were my words sounded like "someone that knows what they are talking
about".
Post by mainframetech
And as to "muddying the waters" the AR is a good example of that
already. If you had more knowledge of the body you might have realized
that Humes left a messy AR there.
I wish I could return your compliment but you don't sound like someone who
knows what he is talking about.
Post by mainframetech
When he made it clear that the "pleura
was INTACT" it cleaned up the whole thing that he was forced into writing.
I'm surprised the whole list of medical 'experts' didn't bother to look it
over more carefully and pick up on that comment. It says that the bullet
didn't get past the pleura, which was the truth. Humes' secret way of
telling the truth against the orders to lie.
If an intact pleura is evidence the bullet never went beyond the pleura,
why couldn't all those review panels comprised of some of the top medical
examiners in the country figure that out? Why do they need you to explain
that to them?
mainframetech
2017-06-21 18:21:42 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
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.
The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.
You ought to run if all you are going to do is make factually challenged
statements. The last sentence of that first paragraph stated that the
quote that followed came from the AR. What follows is the last line from
that paragraph and the quote that followed.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So contrary to your ridiculous claims, I gave the attribution to the
autopsy report and followed it with a verbatim quote from it. Since you
are unable to address the questions asked it seems you chose to instead
try to muddy the waters with your false claims. The simple fact is I
pointed out that there was inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear
as well as radiating fracture lines, both proof positive that the entry
wound was in the BOH and you simply cannot deal with those facts.
Normally one does not have to reads a complete paragraph to find the
attribution for a quote, or a section copied from somewhere that begins
with a number. Was it your number, or some number you copied from
somewhere? Who knows. And of course, if one simply reads the first
paragraph it sounds like someone that knows what they're talking about,
which you don't. So an OBVIOUS attribution would be useful, not one
embedded somewhere in a paragraph.
Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself. You have as much as admitted that
you didn't bother to read the entire post before responding. I'll take it
as a compliment that you thought the first part of that paragraph which
were my words sounded like "someone that knows what they are talking
about".
If they were your words, why were they prefaced by a number '1'? If
you will look closely, you'll se that there is no number '2', as if you
had copied in a numbered paragraph and forgot to remove the number. I
still think it wasn't your form of chat, after seeing your work so many
times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to "muddying the waters" the AR is a good example of that
already. If you had more knowledge of the body you might have realized
that Humes left a messy AR there.
I wish I could return your compliment but you don't sound like someone who
knows what he is talking about.
Nor do you, since you aren't able to recognize a "messy" AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When he made it clear that the "pleura
was INTACT" it cleaned up the whole thing that he was forced into writing.
I'm surprised the whole list of medical 'experts' didn't bother to look it
over more carefully and pick up on that comment. It says that the bullet
didn't get past the pleura, which was the truth. Humes' secret way of
telling the truth against the orders to lie.
If an intact pleura is evidence the bullet never went beyond the pleura,
why couldn't all those review panels comprised of some of the top medical
examiners in the country figure that out? Why do they need you to explain
that to them?
I have no interest in explaining it to them. They made their beds, so
they will lie in them. I believe they read the AR and decided there was
no work for them to do, just OK the AR and go from there. Task done.
They had no access to the body, which was necessary, and no access to the
enlisted men of Bethesda, which was also necessary to determine the real
cause of death.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-22 14:00:20 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
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
Oh good! That means that you will be quoting them, right? And
showing which were quotes and not your own theories.
Yes I will. Read on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
What of the quoting above, or was that your attempt at 'expert' forensic
analysis, since there are no quote marks?
So you made your knee jerk comment without reading the entire post. I'm
sure Marsh is proud of you.
Well, it had the sound of an 'expert' recitation, and since you
haven't the ability, I wondered why there were no quotes and no
attribution. Simple.
The OP not only contained an extensive quote but it also cited the source
as the AR. Apparently you just skimmed through the post the way Marsh does
before making your knee jerk response.
Don't give me that crap. Your paragraph that starts with a number '1.'
does not have an attribution anywhere near it. It is followed by a quote,
which also has no attribution near it. Go look yourself.
The rest is mostly your repetitive garbage. I'm outa here.
You ought to run if all you are going to do is make factually challenged
statements. The last sentence of that first paragraph stated that the
quote that followed came from the AR. What follows is the last line from
that paragraph and the quote that followed.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So contrary to your ridiculous claims, I gave the attribution to the
autopsy report and followed it with a verbatim quote from it. Since you
are unable to address the questions asked it seems you chose to instead
try to muddy the waters with your false claims. The simple fact is I
pointed out that there was inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear
as well as radiating fracture lines, both proof positive that the entry
wound was in the BOH and you simply cannot deal with those facts.
Normally one does not have to reads a complete paragraph to find the
attribution for a quote, or a section copied from somewhere that begins
with a number. Was it your number, or some number you copied from
somewhere? Who knows. And of course, if one simply reads the first
paragraph it sounds like someone that knows what they're talking about,
which you don't. So an OBVIOUS attribution would be useful, not one
embedded somewhere in a paragraph.
Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself. You have as much as admitted that
you didn't bother to read the entire post before responding. I'll take it
as a compliment that you thought the first part of that paragraph which
were my words sounded like "someone that knows what they are talking
about".
If they were your words, why were they prefaced by a number '1'? If
you will look closely, you'll se that there is no number '2', as if you
had copied in a numbered paragraph and forgot to remove the number. I
still think it wasn't your form of chat, after seeing your work so many
times.
There most certainly is a number 2. It is the last paragraph of the OP.
Maybe you should go take a number 2. It might clear your head.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to "muddying the waters" the AR is a good example of that
already. If you had more knowledge of the body you might have realized
that Humes left a messy AR there.
I wish I could return your compliment but you don't sound like someone who
knows what he is talking about.
Nor do you, since you aren't able to recognize a "messy" AR.
"Messy". Who are you quoting there? Yourself?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When he made it clear that the "pleura
was INTACT" it cleaned up the whole thing that he was forced into writing.
I'm surprised the whole list of medical 'experts' didn't bother to look it
over more carefully and pick up on that comment. It says that the bullet
didn't get past the pleura, which was the truth. Humes' secret way of
telling the truth against the orders to lie.
If an intact pleura is evidence the bullet never went beyond the pleura,
why couldn't all those review panels comprised of some of the top medical
examiners in the country figure that out? Why do they need you to explain
that to them?
I have no interest in explaining it to them. They made their beds, so
they will lie in them. I believe they read the AR and decided there was
no work for them to do, just OK the AR and go from there. Task done.
They had no access to the body, which was necessary, and no access to the
enlisted men of Bethesda, which was also necessary to determine the real
cause of death.
OK, here's where we stand. You think a bruised pleura is evidence the
bullet did not go beyond the pleura. Multiple review panels comprised of
some of the top medical examiners in the country were aware of the bruised
pleura and yet concluded the bullet did go beyond the pleura. But you
think we should believe you and dismiss them?

As I said, I do this for amusement only and you are a never ending source
of amusement.
Robert Harris
2017-06-13 00:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.

Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.



Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
mainframetech
2017-06-13 21:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.

As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.

Chris
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-14 14:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
mainframetech
2017-06-15 22:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
I was speaking of X-rays...didn't you figure that out?

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-16 23:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
I was speaking of X-rays...didn't you figure that out?
You spoke of "the photos used by Cummings". How the hell would those
photos show the same fracture lines that appeared in the x-rays.
mainframetech
2017-06-18 23:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
I was speaking of X-rays...didn't you figure that out?
You spoke of "the photos used by Cummings". How the hell would those
photos show the same fracture lines that appeared in the x-rays.
WRONG! The point of my comment was for you to compare the photo of a
head that Cummings used to demonstrate the fracturing from a point at the
rear of the skull. In his demonstration it was clear about the focus
point of the fracturing, but the X-rays of JFK's head don't show that same
fracture pattern, as if the head did NOT get hit from behind.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-19 17:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
I was speaking of X-rays...didn't you figure that out?
You spoke of "the photos used by Cummings". How the hell would those
photos show the same fracture lines that appeared in the x-rays.
WRONG! The point of my comment was for you to compare the photo of a
head that Cummings used to demonstrate the fracturing from a point at the
rear of the skull. In his demonstration it was clear about the focus
point of the fracturing, but the X-rays of JFK's head don't show that same
fracture pattern, as if the head did NOT get hit from behind.
Why would you assume Cummings model was intended to replicate the fracture
lines in JFK's skull and not just a generic representation of the kind of
fracturing that occurs when a high powered bullet strikes a skull? I am
not aware of any x-rays of the back of the head that have been leaked to
the public. Can you provide a line that shows such a view or is this just
something you made up?
mainframetech
2017-06-21 18:24:46 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 Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
I was speaking of X-rays...didn't you figure that out?
You spoke of "the photos used by Cummings". How the hell would those
photos show the same fracture lines that appeared in the x-rays.
WRONG! The point of my comment was for you to compare the photo of a
head that Cummings used to demonstrate the fracturing from a point at the
rear of the skull. In his demonstration it was clear about the focus
point of the fracturing, but the X-rays of JFK's head don't show that same
fracture pattern, as if the head did NOT get hit from behind.
Why would you assume Cummings model was intended to replicate the fracture
lines in JFK's skull and not just a generic representation of the kind of
fracturing that occurs when a high powered bullet strikes a skull?
WRONG! There you go screwing up again! No one told you I assumed
that Cummings' example was intended to replicate the JFK X-rays, but it
was supposed to indicate how the fracture happened when a bullet struck
the BOH. Fractures radiating from the point where the bullet entered the
BOH. The JFK X-ray had NO similarity with that example. Have you
noticed, or did you simply accept anything Cummings said because he was an
'expert' and said what you wanted to hear?
Post by bigdog
I am
not aware of any x-rays of the back of the head that have been leaked to
the public. Can you provide a line that shows such a view or is this just
something you made up?
Try using your head today. The X-rays would show some of the pattern
that Cummings showed in his example if it was similar in how the bullet
hat struck the head from behind. But if they were X-rays of JFK's head,
then they show many things that aren't compatible with what the 'official'
story was. Especially the missing large chunk of the forward part of the
skull over the right eye. Too much is missing there. If the photos were
of the same head, then the scalp over that area would have sunk way in,
which it didn't in the other photos.

amazing what you'll accept when you want it to prove your case.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-22 14:01:01 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 Robert Harris
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the
damage to the windshield and pieces of lead that were found
in the front of the car.
Those could only have been the result of the explosive
headshot at 313, which sent everything forward at
considerable velocity.
Really strange! Since the head shot came from in front of the
limousine, most brain fluid and blood blasted out back and to the left.
Ask Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop that was pelted with the stuff. He
was pacing the limo from a point back and to the left of the limo.
As Vincent DiMaio says, there is a phenomena know as 'backsplash' where
material in the wound flies back in the direction of the incoming bullet.
That may explain the bits and pieces that went forward. The explosiveness
of the head shot really showed it's power when it blasted out the 'large
hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
All that has nothing to do with the questions posed in the OP. If the head
shot came from the front, why do we have radiating fracture lines in the
rear of the skull and why is there inward beveling in the rear skull wall
and outward beveling in the parietal fragment retrieved from Dallas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Compare the X-ray from the 'leaked' autopsy films and the photos used
by Cummings and note the difference.
Why would you think the skull fracture lines would show up in photos in
which the skull was covered by scalp?
I was speaking of X-rays...didn't you figure that out?
You spoke of "the photos used by Cummings". How the hell would those
photos show the same fracture lines that appeared in the x-rays.
WRONG! The point of my comment was for you to compare the photo of a
head that Cummings used to demonstrate the fracturing from a point at the
rear of the skull. In his demonstration it was clear about the focus
point of the fracturing, but the X-rays of JFK's head don't show that same
fracture pattern, as if the head did NOT get hit from behind.
Why would you assume Cummings model was intended to replicate the fracture
lines in JFK's skull and not just a generic representation of the kind of
fracturing that occurs when a high powered bullet strikes a skull?
WRONG! There you go screwing up again! No one told you I assumed
that Cummings' example was intended to replicate the JFK X-rays, but it
was supposed to indicate how the fracture happened when a bullet struck
the BOH. Fractures radiating from the point where the bullet entered the
BOH. The JFK X-ray had NO similarity with that example. Have you
noticed, or did you simply accept anything Cummings said because he was an
'expert' and said what you wanted to hear?
I would certainly accept anything Cummings said over what you have
concluded. Now if you had someone on your side who has equal or greater
credentials than Cummings then that person might be worth listening to but
you certainly aren't.

Why don't you post a link to the x-ray which you claim doesn't show
fracture lines radiating from the point of entry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I am
not aware of any x-rays of the back of the head that have been leaked to
the public. Can you provide a line that shows such a view or is this just
something you made up?
Try using your head today. The X-rays would show some of the pattern
that Cummings showed in his example if it was similar in how the bullet
hat struck the head from behind. But if they were X-rays of JFK's head,
then they show many things that aren't compatible with what the 'official'
story was. Especially the missing large chunk of the forward part of the
skull over the right eye. Too much is missing there. If the photos were
of the same head, then the scalp over that area would have sunk way in,
which it didn't in the other photos.
So once again we are supposed to believe your assessment of the x-rays and
dismiss what all those far more qualified men had to say. This just keeps
getting funnier and funnier.
Post by mainframetech
amazing what you'll accept when you want it to prove your case.
Amazing what you will dream up.

Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 13:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A much better and simpler way to explain this is point to the damage to
the windshield and pieces of lead that were found in the front of the car.
Maybe, but which pieces do you mean? One of the piece found in the front
of the car was ONLY the copper jacket with no lead inside.

Where did the lead go?

They took the lead out because they heard the limo used only unleaded?
Those could only have been the result of the explosive headshot at 313,
which sent everything forward at considerable velocity.
Maybe.
Robert Harris
Post by bigdog
Let me start by stating I am not pretending any expertise of my own but am
relying on the expertise of the medical examiners who have reviewed the
forensic evidence produced during the autopsy.
1. The skull wall in the rear of JFK's head exhibited inward beveling and
the loose fragment of parietal bone that was brought to Bethesda during
the course of the autopsy exhibited outward beveling. Both the autopsy
team and the subsequent reviews took this as evidence that the bullet
entered the back of the head and exited from the right side (parietal).
Marsh has in the past correctly pointed out that outward beveling of an
entrance wound can occur under certain circumstances. One is a contact
wound in which the gun is fired at or near point blank range and the
gasses discharging from the muzzle create a crater around the entrance
wound. The other is a keyhole entry in which the missile enters the skull
wall at a tangential angle. I don't think anyone believes the headshot was
a contact wound so that would leave a keyhole entry to explain the outward
beveling of the skull fragment in the parietal area. But how does one then
explain the inward beveling of the skull wall in the rear? Quoting from
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So the question is, do you dispute that there was inward beveling in the
rear of the skull and outward beveling in the parietal bone or do you
dispute that is evidence of a bullet entering the back of the head and
exiting from the parietal bone.
2. The fracture lines radiated out from a small wound in the rear of the
skull. That was interpreted to indicate and entry wound in the rear of the
skull. Do you dispute that such fracture lines existed or do you dispute
that is an indicating of a point of entry?
Loading...