3rd shot

[Frank Gerber]

Hi!

By reading different articles, reports and books one question came to my
mind:

Where the hell (sorry!) was the impact of the third shot (first, second or
third doesnŽt matter here)?

If I understood what IŽve read, we have one impact in JFKŽs back or neck,
the bullet went on through JBC and remained in his thigh.

The second went through JFKs head and splitted up in two bigger and
multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger parts hit the inside of the
windshield, the other heavy part caused the dent in the chrome topping
above the windshield.

Somewhere I read of witnesses who saw a bullet hitting the street behind
the presidental limousine. Where is a photo of this impact? If there is no
picture of this piece of evidence, why is there no such picture? If there
is no picture, would it be consistent to assume that there was no impact
in the paving?

We have a picture presumably of a bullet impact at the curbstone far down
Elmstreet. If this is the impact of the third shot, how can this line of
fire (from the 6th floor window) be consistent with a shot around frame
160? WouldnŽt it not be more consistent to conclude that the first two
shots were hits and the third shot was the miss (after the head shot)?

IŽm just reading the book "From Love Field" by Nellie Connaly. She states
that the first shot hit Jfk, a SECOND ONE hit her husband and the third
one was the shot at frame 313. This would make three shots and three hits.
I think I saw a two different interviews with JBC where he makes a
statement which corresponds to the statements of his wife - that he wasnŽt
hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

O. k. : Where do you think is the impact of the third bullet?

Frank

[Ricky Tobias]

On 5 Jun 2005 23:32:56 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>Hi!
>
>By reading different articles, reports and books one question came to my
>mind:
>
>Where the hell (sorry!) was the impact of the third shot (first, second or
>third doesn´t matter here)?
>
>If I understood what I´ve read, we have one impact in JFK´s back or neck,
>the bullet went on through JBC and remained in his thigh.
>
>The second went through JFKs head and splitted up in two bigger and
>multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger parts hit the inside of the
>windshield, the other heavy part caused the dent in the chrome topping
>above the windshield.
>
>Somewhere I read of witnesses who saw a bullet hitting the street behind
>the presidental limousine. Where is a photo of this impact? If there is no
>picture of this piece of evidence, why is there no such picture? If there
>is no picture, would it be consistent to assume that there was no impact
>in the paving?
>
Several reported pavement impacts but no official photos were taken of
them. The DPD was probably not told of them and did not investigate
them on 11-22-63. They had many things to investigate. Photos and
several statements were taken of a bullet impact/recovery at the south
Elm manhole and the curb on Main.

>We have a picture presumably of a bullet impact at the curbstone far down
>Elmstreet. If this is the impact of the third shot, how can this line of
>fire (from the 6th floor window) be consistent with a shot around frame
>160? Wouldn´t it not be more consistent to conclude that the first two
>shots were hits and the third shot was the miss (after the head shot)?
>
No. The first shot should be a hit because more time is given for it.
The second shot is a miss because it is rushed and if it were a hit
than no need for a third shot. A shot after Z313 is probably
impossible because JFK falls from view into the seat.

>I´m just reading the book "From Love Field" by Nellie Connaly. She states
>that the first shot hit Jfk, a SECOND ONE hit her husband and the third
>one was the shot at frame 313. This would make three shots and three hits.
>I think I saw a two different interviews with JBC where he makes a
>statement which corresponds to the statements of his wife - that he wasn´t
>hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
>
That is probably true to the evidence.

>O. k. : Where do you think is the impact of the third bullet?
>
To JFK's head and it must fragment to cause all the limo damage.

>Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Brokedad]

It is actually irrelevant as to where we "think" impact occurred.

This opens the proverbial can of worms.

What is relative is:

1. When was the unaccounted for shot fired.

2. Where was JFK/JBC at the time of impact.

3. What injuries if any is this shot responsible for.

The WC expended some 10 pages of circular reasoning in explaining "the
shot that missed".

Common logic says that if LHO/the Lone Assassin/Whoever, could hit JFK
two our of three shots, at minimum, he could have at least hit the car
or someone within it on the third shot.

Lastly, the head shot/Z313 is the second shot if that is of any
assistance.

Tom

[Robert Harris]

On 5 Jun 2005 23:32:56 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>Hi!
>
>By reading different articles, reports and books one question came to my
>mind:
>
>Where the hell (sorry!) was the impact of the third shot (first, second or
>third doesnŽt matter here)?

The third shot missed Kennedy and went on to strike the pave on Main
St. Near James Tague. The shots are described in great detail in the
following article:

http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html



Robert Harris






>
>If I understood what IŽve read, we have one impact in JFKŽs back or neck,
>the bullet went on through JBC and remained in his thigh.
>
>The second went through JFKs head and splitted up in two bigger and
>multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger parts hit the inside of the
>windshield, the other heavy part caused the dent in the chrome topping
>above the windshield.
>
>Somewhere I read of witnesses who saw a bullet hitting the street behind
>the presidental limousine. Where is a photo of this impact? If there is no
>picture of this piece of evidence, why is there no such picture? If there
>is no picture, would it be consistent to assume that there was no impact
>in the paving?
>
>We have a picture presumably of a bullet impact at the curbstone far down
>Elmstreet. If this is the impact of the third shot, how can this line of
>fire (from the 6th floor window) be consistent with a shot around frame
>160? WouldnŽt it not be more consistent to conclude that the first two
>shots were hits and the third shot was the miss (after the head shot)?
>
>IŽm just reading the book "From Love Field" by Nellie Connaly. She states
>that the first shot hit Jfk, a SECOND ONE hit her husband and the third
>one was the shot at frame 313. This would make three shots and three hits.
>I think I saw a two different interviews with JBC where he makes a
>statement which corresponds to the statements of his wife - that he wasnŽt
>hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
>
>O. k. : Where do you think is the impact of the third bullet?
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

[Dave Hicks]

I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
accomplished" after the shot at Z313.

[Ricky Tobias]

On 6 Jun 2005 19:10:18 -0400, "Dave Hicks" <***@ohio.edu> wrote:

>I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>

No shots after Z313 should have been fired. JFK falls to the left out of
view probably before a single shooter could reload and aim. The shooter
may not have seen the results of Z313. His ability to continue shooting
depends upon JFK staying in view which is about two seconds.

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Frank Gerber]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Hicks" <***@ohio.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd shot


>I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>
>
O.k., but itŽs hard to accept that the first shot was the miss and the
following two were "bullseyes".

If you are sitting on the 6th floor, your rifle is resting on the box in
front of you aiming down Elm Street and you see the car slowly move into
your line of fire this should be the easiest shot of the three. But you
donŽt even hit the street around the car ???

And after the first shot you have to reload and aim in under 5 seconds -
and to do that you have to lower the gun, move the bolt, put the gun back
into your shoulder, adjust the direction of the gun, bring the crosshairs
exactly were you want to hit and pull the trigger slowly (otherwise you
wonŽt hit). And what a surprise: a direct hit! And one more time! And the
third shot was even better than the second one!

I find this scenario to be rather unlikely.

First shot: hit

Second shot: hit

Third shot: miss

I canŽt imagine that the shooter could discern whether or whom he did hit.
He wanted to get off all of his four shots - but the car sped out of sight
too fast. Maybe something like overkill.

Frank

[Anthony Marsh]

Dave Hicks wrote:

> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>
>

Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when
the grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.

[Frank Gerber]

Until now I couldnŽt find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
front.

What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?

And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
there must be an exit wound on the left back side of JfkŽs head.

All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
hole in the RIGHT back of the head.

And donŽt try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
wonŽt believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasnŽt
damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
familiar to me).

The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.

Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
shows the explosion of the head to the front.

Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and IŽll believe it.

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd shot


> Dave Hicks wrote:
>
>> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>>
>>
>
> Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
> grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
>

"Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7mtpe.2099$***@trndny06...
> Dave Hicks wrote:
>
>> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>>
>>
>
> Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
> grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Frank Gerber wrote:
> Until now I couldn´t find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
> front.
>
> What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>
> And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
> there must be an exit wound on the left back side of Jfk´s head.
>

That is simply not true. You seem to know nothing about ballistics.
There are often gunshots to the head where there is ONLY an entrance
wound and no exit wound. For example in suicides. Or in executions. Or
in assassination attempts. Such as James Brady's head wound. In that
case an explosive bullet was used.

> All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
> hole in the RIGHT back of the head.
>

And so? That doesn't make it a fact.

> And don´t try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I

There is no need to explain a missing exit, because there does not have
to be an exit. But I happened to think it was an exploding bullet. That
is not the ONLY type that could produce just an entrance wound, but it
seems the most likely.

> won´t believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
> head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasn´t

Yes, several pieces of it DID pierce through the brain. There were many
tiny fragments in the brain. And scores of dustlike fragments. Not
characteristic of FMJ ball ammo.

> damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
> familiar to me).

Explosive bullets are not magic. They are real and have been used for
over 100 years.

>
> The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.
>

Then show me the entrance hole on the back of the head.

> Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
> and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
> shows the explosion of the head to the front.
>

The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not prove
they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
Connally's back wounds.

> Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and I´ll believe it.
>

I doubt it. You already have made so many false assumptions.

> Frank
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:52 AM
> Subject: Re: 3rd shot
>
>
>
>>Dave Hicks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>>>trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>>>shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>>>would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>>>accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
>>grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
>>
>
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:7mtpe.2099$***@trndny06...
>
>>Dave Hicks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>>>trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>>>shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>>>would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>>>accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
>>grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
>>
>
>
>
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 9 Jun 2005 07:28:39 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
wrote:

>
>>> Until now I couldn´t find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
>>> front.
>>>
>>> What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>>>
>>> And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
>>> there must be an exit wound on the left back side of Jfk´s head.
>>>
>
>> That is simply not true. You seem to know nothing about ballistics.
>> There are often gunshots to the head where there is ONLY an entrance
>> wound and no exit wound. For example in suicides. Or in executions. Or
>> in assassination attempts. Such as James Brady's head wound. In that
>> case an explosive bullet was used.
>
>So there are victims with entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
>That´s fine - but if that´s the case the bullet or pieces of it is/are found
>inside the body.
>
>Jfk had an entrance wound in the back of his head:
>
>
>
>
>>>> All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
>>>> hole in the RIGHT back of the head.
>>>>
>
>>And so? That doesn't make it a fact.
>
>O.k. - I agree, and in fact I don´t believe that there was an exit wound in
>the back of his head.
>But what make YOUR speculations a fact - NOTHING or less than that.
>
>> And don´t try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
>
>>There is no need to explain a missing exit, because there does not have
>>to be an exit. But I happened to think it was an exploding bullet. That
>>is not the ONLY type that could produce just an entrance wound, but it
>>seems the most likely.
>
>The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many fps?
>600, 700, 800?

It is going about 2000 fps in order to cause the bursting wound.

>Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into the
>direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).

No the blood went in all directions including forward as seen in Z 313
and 314.

>Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from earth.
>
Who looked for it in the right place?

>O. k., you certainly know more about physics and ballistics than I ever will
>be able to understand.
>
>How can anybody believe this?????????????
>
Because the known evidence supports a reasonable possibility that it
did occur.

>>>won´t believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
>>>head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasn´t
>
>>Yes, several pieces of it DID pierce through the brain. There were many
>>tiny fragments in the brain. And scores of dustlike fragments. Not
>>characteristic of FMJ ball ammo.
>
>How much of this second magic bullet was found in the head? 0,5%, 1%? And
>the rest of it?
>The bullet broke appart and it didn´t go through as a whole. So the
>fragments can well be explained with the official conclusions.
>
Yes but are the official conclusions true? The HSCA concluded it made
one exit near the forehead.

>>>damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
>>>familiar to me).
>
>>Explosive bullets are not magic. They are real and have been used for
>>over 100 years.
>
>Certainly they were - but NONE of them vanished totally.
>
Yes bullets are not always found and that does not mean the bullet
vanished. It simply was not recovered.

>>
>>> The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.
>>>
>
>>Then show me the entrance hole on the back of the head.
>
>See picture! Oh - I guess you´ll say it´s no hole or it´s a fake. Well, I
>won´t be able to argue against this kind of evidence. That´s simply too much
>"fact".

Yes you have to prove it is a hole and a gunshot wound. If it is
faked then I must prove it was faked. The photos are evidence but we
do not have the originals and all of the photos.

>
>> Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
>> and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
>> shows the explosion of the head to the front.
>>
>
>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not prove
>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>Connally's back wounds.
>
>> Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and I´ll believe it.
>>
>
>>I doubt it. You already have made so many false assumptions.
>
>I made false assumptions? Maybe. But you didn´t make ONE that´s right, IMO.
>And you certainly didn´t prove one of your frontal shot fictions.
>
>Frank
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

Frank Gerber wrote:

>>>Until now I couldn´t find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
>>>front.
>>>
>>>What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>>>
>>>And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
>>>there must be an exit wound on the left back side of Jfk´s head.
>>>
>
>
>>That is simply not true. You seem to know nothing about ballistics.
>>There are often gunshots to the head where there is ONLY an entrance
>>wound and no exit wound. For example in suicides. Or in executions. Or
>>in assassination attempts. Such as James Brady's head wound. In that
>>case an explosive bullet was used.
>
>
> So there are victims with entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
> That´s fine - but if that´s the case the bullet or pieces of it is/are found
> inside the body.
>

And indeed pieces of the bullet were found in President Kennedy's head.
Several small fragments and dozens of dustlike fragments. In the case of
the James Brady shooting, the base of the bullet was blown back out of the
entrance wound upon impact and only 4 or 5 tiny fragments went into the
brain and did not exit. One of the bullets hit a window in the building
across the street. Upon impact it made a small hole and a few slivers were
found just inside the window. The base of the bullet was found on the
sidewalk below the window.

> Jfk had an entrance wound in the back of his head:
>

Show me.

>
>
>
>
>>>>All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
>>>>hole in the RIGHT back of the head.
>>>>
>
>
>>And so? That doesn't make it a fact.
>
>
> O.k. - I agree, and in fact I don´t believe that there was an exit wound in
> the back of his head.
> But what make YOUR speculations a fact - NOTHING or less than that.
>
>
>>And don´t try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
>
>
>>There is no need to explain a missing exit, because there does not have
>>to be an exit. But I happened to think it was an exploding bullet. That
>>is not the ONLY type that could produce just an entrance wound, but it
>>seems the most likely.
>
>
> The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many fps?
> 600, 700, 800?
> Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into the
> direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
> Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from earth.
>

I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100 feet
and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps according
to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll shot. Bullets
do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet from the shot
which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me the damage it did.
Anything.

Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
fragments that they found in the limousine.

> O. k., you certainly know more about physics and ballistics than I ever will
> be able to understand.
>
> How can anybody believe this?????????????
>

As per the famous Sherlock Holmes quote, we don't start with these
conclusions, we reach them as the only thing left after eliminating the
impossible.

>
>>>won´t believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
>>>head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasn´t
>
>
>>Yes, several pieces of it DID pierce through the brain. There were many
>>tiny fragments in the brain. And scores of dustlike fragments. Not
>>characteristic of FMJ ball ammo.
>
>
> How much of this second magic bullet was found in the head? 0,5%, 1%? And
> the rest of it?

The percentage I do not know. Certainly very small. And some was never
removed.

> The bullet broke appart and it didn´t go through as a whole. So the
> fragments can well be explained with the official conclusions.
>
>
>>>damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
>>>familiar to me).
>
>
>>Explosive bullets are not magic. They are real and have been used for
>>over 100 years.
>
>
> Certainly they were - but NONE of them vanished totally.
>

Well, not explosive bullets. But frangible bullets will disintegrate
into a dustlike state.

>
>>>The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.
>>>
>
>
>>Then show me the entrance hole on the back of the head.
>
>
> See picture! Oh - I guess you´ll say it´s no hole or it´s a fake. Well, I
> won´t be able to argue against this kind of evidence. That´s simply too much
> "fact".
>

What hole?

>
>>Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
>>and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
>>shows the explosion of the head to the front.
>>
>
>
>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not prove
>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>Connally's back wounds.
>
>
>>Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and I´ll believe it.
>>
>
>
>>I doubt it. You already have made so many false assumptions.
>
>
> I made false assumptions? Maybe. But you didn´t make ONE that´s right, IMO.
> And you certainly didn´t prove one of your frontal shot fictions.
>

What assumption did I make?

> Frank
>
>
>

[Frank Gerber]

"Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:lp3qe.5843$***@trndny06...
> Frank Gerber wrote:
>
>>>>Until now I couldnŽt find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
>>>>front.
>>>>
>>>>What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>>>>
>>>>And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
>>>>there must be an exit wound on the left back side of JfkŽs head.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>That is simply not true. You seem to know nothing about ballistics.
>>>There are often gunshots to the head where there is ONLY an entrance
>>>wound and no exit wound. For example in suicides. Or in executions. Or
>>>in assassination attempts. Such as James Brady's head wound. In that
>>>case an explosive bullet was used.
>>
>>
>> So there are victims with entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
>> ThatŽs fine - but if thatŽs the case the bullet or pieces of it is/are
>> found inside the body.
>>
>
> And indeed pieces of the bullet were found in President Kennedy's head.
> Several small fragments and dozens of dustlike fragments. In the case of
> the James Brady shooting, the base of the bullet was blown back out of the
> entrance wound upon impact and only 4 or 5 tiny fragments went into the
> brain and did not exit. One of the bullets hit a window in the building
> across the street. Upon impact it made a small hole and a few slivers were
> found just inside the window. The base of the bullet was found on the
> sidewalk below the window.
>

>>
>>>And donŽt try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
>>
>>
>>>There is no need to explain a missing exit, because there does not have
>>>to be an exit. But I happened to think it was an exploding bullet. That
>>>is not the ONLY type that could produce just an entrance wound, but it
>>>seems the most likely.
>>
>>
>> The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many fps?
>> 600, 700, 800?
>> Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into
>> the direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
>> Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from
>> earth.
>>
>
> I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100 feet
> and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps according
> to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll shot. Bullets
> do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet from the shot
> which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me the damage it did.
> Anything.
>
> Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
> fragments that they found in the limousine.
>
IŽm afraid you wonŽt understand the difference - but IŽll try it:

The bullet that missed didnŽt hit a human skull. It hit a curbstone and was
deflected - maybe it was torn in several pieces which landed somewhere in
Dallas/Texas.
If someone would have found these pieces after a long, long, long search,
one could have explained why they were found in those places by calculating
velocity, weight, angles, etc.. Mathematics and physics could have explained
their flight paths.

If you could discribe your fictional frontal shot - as it must have happened
according to your theory - with mathematical and physical formulas, you
certainly would win a Nobel prize in physics.

>> O. k., you certainly know more about physics and ballistics than I ever
>> will be able to understand.
>>
>> How can anybody believe this?????????????
>>
>
> As per the famous Sherlock Holmes quote, we don't start with these
> conclusions, we reach them as the only thing left after eliminating the
> impossible.
>

Ha, I got you, Anthony! Sherlock Homes is pure fiction - like your theory!
Eh, eh, eh!!

>>>Yes, several pieces of it DID pierce through the brain. There were many
>>>tiny fragments in the brain. And scores of dustlike fragments. Not
>>>characteristic of FMJ ball ammo.
>>
>>
>> How much of this second magic bullet was found in the head? 0,5%, 1%? And
>> the rest of it?
>
> The percentage I do not know. Certainly very small. And some was never
> removed.
>

>>
>> Certainly they were - but NONE of them vanished totally.
>>
>
> Well, not explosive bullets. But frangible bullets will disintegrate into
> a dustlike state.

Like vampires? Yes, I heard these things. DidnŽt they call one of them
"DRACULA"?

>> See picture! Oh - I guess youŽll say itŽs no hole or itŽs a fake. Well, I
>> wonŽt be able to argue against this kind of evidence. ThatŽs simply too
>> much "fact".
>>
>
> What hole?

Very funny! See autopsy report and the BOH-photo. I think that the red spot
is the entrance wound and I think it could be just where the autopsy report
places it:
"to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance". My "bump"
is above a drawn line between the tips of my ears. It seems to me that the
red spot in F3 isnŽt too far away from this location.
F3 makes no sense without showing something important. Why should they have
taken a photo of JfkŽs washed and combed hairs?
And if they washed his hair, why didnŽt they wash away the red spot?

>>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not prove
>>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>>Connally's back wounds.

YES!! JBC and his wife were spattered with pieces of JfkŽs brain and this
indicates a shot from the right front.

Sherry Gutierrez didnŽt see the crime scene in reality, she didnŽt have
pictures from the car just after the shots with the victims sitting in the
car and she used a "target sponge" instead of a human skull.
How credible do you believe is this so-called "analysis"?

In her "analysis" I found the following passage:

"A bullet interacts with the head in several stages.
1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as
backspatter.
3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through the
brain.
4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary
expanding cavity.
5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped exit
hole.
6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues
moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the
accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped
exit wound.
7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter,
the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final size
depending on how large the internal pressures became."

Where is Nr. 5 in your theory? Behind the entering bullet? Oh yes, I forgot,
it flies at a speed of 2200 fps in the direction of the head, pierces the
bone, blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear, and then it
disintegrates into small pieces that no one can find.

I think even Captain James T. Kirk doesnŽt have this kind of bullets in his
arsenal.

> What assumption did I make?

Well - let me put it like this: What of your frontal shot scenario is NO
assumption?

Oh, I have to agree that the backward movement of the head is no assumption.

But if I were you, I now would say "What backward movement? Maybe they
exchanged some frames of the Z-film to make it look like a backward
movement. In reality they had an ACDC cassette playing in the car and were
headbanging. If you listen to the DP-tapes very carefully, you can hear it
clearly "... weŽre on a highway to hell ...".

Frank

[Anthony Marsh]

Frank Gerber wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:lp3qe.5843$***@trndny06...
>
>>Frank Gerber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Until now I couldn´t find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
>>>>>front.
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>>>>>
>>>>>And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
>>>>>there must be an exit wound on the left back side of Jfk´s head.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That is simply not true. You seem to know nothing about ballistics.
>>>>There are often gunshots to the head where there is ONLY an entrance
>>>>wound and no exit wound. For example in suicides. Or in executions. Or
>>>>in assassination attempts. Such as James Brady's head wound. In that
>>>>case an explosive bullet was used.
>>>
>>>
>>>So there are victims with entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
>>>That´s fine - but if that´s the case the bullet or pieces of it is/are
>>>found inside the body.
>>>
>>
>>And indeed pieces of the bullet were found in President Kennedy's head.
>>Several small fragments and dozens of dustlike fragments. In the case of
>>the James Brady shooting, the base of the bullet was blown back out of the
>>entrance wound upon impact and only 4 or 5 tiny fragments went into the
>>brain and did not exit. One of the bullets hit a window in the building
>>across the street. Upon impact it made a small hole and a few slivers were
>>found just inside the window. The base of the bullet was found on the
>>sidewalk below the window.
>>
>
>
>>>>And don´t try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no need to explain a missing exit, because there does not have
>>>>to be an exit. But I happened to think it was an exploding bullet. That
>>>>is not the ONLY type that could produce just an entrance wound, but it
>>>>seems the most likely.
>>>
>>>
>>>The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many fps?
>>>600, 700, 800?
>>>Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into
>>>the direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
>>>Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from
>>>earth.
>>>
>>
>>I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100 feet
>>and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps according
>>to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll shot. Bullets
>>do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet from the shot
>>which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me the damage it did.
>>Anything.
>>
>>Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
>>fragments that they found in the limousine.
>>
>
> I´m afraid you won´t understand the difference - but I´ll try it:
>
> The bullet that missed didn´t hit a human skull. It hit a curbstone and was
> deflected - maybe it was torn in several pieces which landed somewhere in
> Dallas/Texas.

You seem confused. If you are asking me where misses went, then I am
asking you where misses went.
The WC's missed shot might not have hit near Tague. Shoe me the
curbstone where you said it hit and prove to me which bullet hit it. The
curb near Tague had no copper, as it would from a direct hit by the
copper-jacketed bullet. So it's likely that it was hit by only the lead
core, a fragment from another shot.
And the two large fragments did not necessarily come from the head shot.
Diagram for me the trajectory from the head which would deposit them in
the front seat. Another possibility is that the two large fragments came
from the bullet which hit Connally's wrist.

> If someone would have found these pieces after a long, long, long search,
> one could have explained why they were found in those places by calculating
> velocity, weight, angles, etc.. Mathematics and physics could have explained
> their flight paths.
>

Never. You are imagining things. WC defenders can not now do that for
the two large fragments.
They can't even figure out where a bullet would go after leaving the
head ala the HSCA exit wound.


> If you could discribe your fictional frontal shot - as it must have happened
> according to your theory - with mathematical and physical formulas, you
> certainly would win a Nobel prize in physics.
>

Nah.

>
>>>O. k., you certainly know more about physics and ballistics than I ever
>>>will be able to understand.
>>>
>>>How can anybody believe this?????????????
>>>
>>
>>As per the famous Sherlock Holmes quote, we don't start with these
>>conclusions, we reach them as the only thing left after eliminating the
>>impossible.
>>
>
>
> Ha, I got you, Anthony! Sherlock Homes is pure fiction - like your theory!
> Eh, eh, eh!!
>
>
>>>>Yes, several pieces of it DID pierce through the brain. There were many
>>>>tiny fragments in the brain. And scores of dustlike fragments. Not
>>>>characteristic of FMJ ball ammo.
>>>
>>>
>>>How much of this second magic bullet was found in the head? 0,5%, 1%? And
>>>the rest of it?
>>
>>The percentage I do not know. Certainly very small. And some was never
>>removed.
>>
>
>
>>>Certainly they were - but NONE of them vanished totally.
>>>
>>
>>Well, not explosive bullets. But frangible bullets will disintegrate into
>>a dustlike state.
>
>
> Like vampires? Yes, I heard these things. Didn´t they call one of them
> "DRACULA"?
>

I never heard of a bullet called Dracula. Frangible bullets do indeed
disintegrate into a dustlike state.

>
>>>See picture! Oh - I guess you´ll say it´s no hole or it´s a fake. Well, I
>>>won´t be able to argue against this kind of evidence. That´s simply too
>>>much "fact".
>>>
>>
>>What hole?
>
>
> Very funny! See autopsy report and the BOH-photo. I think that the red spot
> is the entrance wound and I think it could be just where the autopsy report
> places it:

Red spot? You mean like on Jupiter? You are talking science fiction.
The place that the HSCA identified was FOUR INCHES above where the
autopsy report placed their entrance wound.

> "to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance". My "bump"
> is above a drawn line between the tips of my ears. It seems to me that the
> red spot in F3 isn´t too far away from this location.

"Isn't too far away." I.E. Close enough for a WC defender. You don't
care where the wound was as long as it was on the head.

> F3 makes no sense without showing something important. Why should they have
> taken a photo of Jfk´s washed and combed hairs?

Hmm, so you're going to start the "why should" game now? OK, I can play
too. Why should they take a photo of the back of the head if they are
not going to shave around the wound and document its location and
appearance (as Spitz says they should have)?
Is there an angle which they did not photograph? The photograph of the
back of the head proves that there was no massive exit wound in the back
of the head. You do not only photograph points of damage. You also
photograph the entire body to prove where there was NO DAMAGE.
Was there an exit or entrance wound on his feet?


> And if they washed his hair, why didn´t they wash away the red spot?
>

Wash his hair? OK. Wash his hair. They did not wash his scalp. The blood
clot could still remain on his scalp.

>
>>>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not prove
>>>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>>>Connally's back wounds.
>
>
> YES!! JBC and his wife were spattered with pieces of Jfk´s brain and this
> indicates a shot from the right front.
>
> Sherry Gutierrez didn´t see the crime scene in reality, she didn´t have
> pictures from the car just after the shots with the victims sitting in the
> car and she used a "target sponge" instead of a human skull.
> How credible do you believe is this so-called "analysis"?
>

It is important. She is an expert in that particular field.

> In her "analysis" I found the following passage:
>
> "A bullet interacts with the head in several stages.
> 1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
> 2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as
> backspatter.
> 3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through the
> brain.
> 4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary
> expanding cavity.
> 5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped exit
> hole.
> 6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues
> moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the
> accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped
> exit wound.
> 7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter,
> the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final size
> depending on how large the internal pressures became."
>
> Where is Nr. 5 in your theory? Behind the entering bullet? Oh yes, I forgot,
> it flies at a speed of 2200 fps in the direction of the head, pierces the
> bone, blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear, and then it
> disintegrates into small pieces that no one can find.
>

She explains what is the normal situation with normal ammunition of the
type.
Who says that a shot blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the
rear? Have you looked at the photographs of the brain?
They found LOTS of small pieces in the brain.
They removed two of them.

> I think even Captain James T. Kirk doesn´t have this kind of bullets in his
> arsenal.
>

They rarely used bullets in outer space. If you think that explosive
bullets do not exist, then you need to do some reading. And no I am not
going to demonstrate them for you. They are illegal now for the public.

>
>>What assumption did I make?
>
>
> Well - let me put it like this: What of your frontal shot scenario is NO
> assumption?
>

The entrance wound. The dozens of dustlike fragments and several larger
fragments see in the head. The acoustical evidence.

> Oh, I have to agree that the backward movement of the head is no assumption.
>
> But if I were you, I now would say "What backward movement? Maybe they
> exchanged some frames of the Z-film to make it look like a backward
> movement. In reality they had an ACDC cassette playing in the car and were
> headbanging. If you listen to the DP-tapes very carefully, you can hear it
> clearly "... we´re on a highway to hell ...".
>
> Frank
>
>
>

[Frank Gerber]

>>>>The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many
>>>>fps? 600, 700, 800?
>>>>Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into
>>>>the direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
>>>>Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from
>>>>earth.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100 feet
>>>and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps according
>>>to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll shot. Bullets
>>>do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet from the shot
>>>which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me the damage it
>>>did. Anything.
>>>
>>>Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
>>>fragments that they found in the limousine.
>>>
>>
>> IŽm afraid you wonŽt understand the difference - but IŽll try it:
>>
>> The bullet that missed didnŽt hit a human skull. It hit a curbstone and
>> was deflected - maybe it was torn in several pieces which landed
>> somewhere in Dallas/Texas.
>
> You seem confused.

I understand that your kind of thinking might lead to such an impression.

>If you are asking me where misses went, then I am asking you where misses
>went.
> The WC's missed shot might not have hit near Tague. Shoe me the curbstone
> where you said it hit and prove to me which bullet hit it. The curb near
> Tague had no copper, as it would from a direct hit by the copper-jacketed
> bullet. So it's likely that it was hit by only the lead core, a fragment
> from another shot.
> And the two large fragments did not necessarily come from the head shot.
> Diagram for me the trajectory from the head which would deposit them in
> the front seat. Another possibility is that the two large fragments came
> from the bullet which hit Connally's wrist.

I think I donŽt have to show you anything. I try to base my logical
consequences on facts. IŽm not able to detect this kind of proceeding in
your way of drawing conclusions.

>> If someone would have found these pieces after a long, long, long search,
>> one could have explained why they were found in those places by
>> calculating velocity, weight, angles, etc.. Mathematics and physics could
>> have explained their flight paths.
>>
>
> Never. You are imagining things. WC defenders can not now do that for the
> two large fragments.

Why are there two large fragments if Kennedy was shot with a frangible
bullet from the front? They shouldnŽt be there - right?

> They can't even figure out where a bullet would go after leaving the head
> ala the HSCA exit wound.

WhatŽs wrong with this conclusion: The bullet went through JFK`s head and
splitted up into two bigger and multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger
parts hit the inside of the windshield, the other heavy part caused the
dent in the chrome topping above the windshield. ?

Why is a frontal shot no imagination?

>>
>>
>>>>See picture! Oh - I guess youŽll say itŽs no hole or itŽs a fake. Well,
>>>>I wonŽt be able to argue against this kind of evidence. ThatŽs simply
>>>>too much "fact".
>>>>
>>>
>>>What hole?
>>
>>
>> Very funny! See autopsy report and the BOH-photo. I think that the red
>> spot is the entrance wound and I think it could be just where the autopsy
>> report places it:
>
> Red spot? You mean like on Jupiter? You are talking science fiction.
> The place that the HSCA identified was FOUR INCHES above where the autopsy
> report placed their entrance wound.

But it placed an entrance wound in the back of the head - like the WC did.

>
>> "to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance". My
>> "bump" is above a drawn line between the tips of my ears. It seems to me
>> that the red spot in F3 isnŽt too far away from this location.
>
> "Isn't too far away." I.E. Close enough for a WC defender. You don't care
> where the wound was as long as it was on the head.

Two commissions said the entrance wound was in the back of the head.
The autopsy photo shows an entrance wound in the back of the head.
The explosion at Z 313 was to the front.

...

Why should I accept a theory which moves the entry wound to the front of
the head? Where is one single piece of hard EVIDENCE for the shot from the
front?

If you rely on the "accoustical evidence", itŽs YOUR decision. I donŽt
know which of the "expertises" is right. Some say itŽs evidence of four
shots, some say it has to be recorded after the shots, some say itŽs
random noise. Because of that I have to ignore the "accoustical evidence"
for myself.

I defend nothing. IŽm just trying to reach proper conclusions on my own.

>
>> F3 makes no sense without showing something important. Why should they
>> have taken a photo of JfkŽs washed and combed hairs?
>
> Hmm, so you're going to start the "why should" game now? OK, I can play
> too. Why should they take a photo of the back of the head if they are not
> going to shave around the wound and document its location and appearance
> (as Spitz says they should have)?
> Is there an angle which they did not photograph? The photograph of the
> back of the head proves that there was no massive exit wound in the back
> of the head. You do not only photograph points of damage. You also
> photograph the entire body to prove where there was NO DAMAGE.

So they measure NO DAMAGE with a ruler? Medical examiner for protocol: "In
the back of the head we have no damage. It measures 7 by 14 mm."

Or are they holding the head in position with the help of the ruler? Maybe
they swat a fly with it - who knows?

> Was there an exit or entrance wound on his feet?

Why didnŽt they make a photo of the NO DAMAGE on the feet if they made a
photo of the NO DAMGAGE on the back of the head?


>> And if they washed his hair, why didnŽt they wash away the red spot?
>>
>
> Wash his hair? OK. Wash his hair. They did not wash his scalp. The blood
> clot could still remain on his scalp.

Yes! It was a very persistent clot what couldnŽt be washed off. And
because the autopsists had never seen such a clot before, they made a
photo of it.

>
>>
>>>>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>>>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not
>>>>>prove
>>>>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>>>>Connally's back wounds.
>>
>>
>> YES!! JBC and his wife were spattered with pieces of JfkŽs brain and this
>> indicates a shot from the right front.
>>
>> Sherry Gutierrez didnŽt see the crime scene in reality, she didnŽt have
>> pictures from the car just after the shots with the victims sitting in
>> the car and she used a "target sponge" instead of a human skull.
>> How credible do you believe is this so-called "analysis"?
>>
>
> It is important. She is an expert in that particular field.

Maybe sheŽs good. But with no data itŽs hard to reach the right
conclusions - even for the best expert.

>> In her "analysis" I found the following passage:
>>
>> "A bullet interacts with the head in several stages.
>> 1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
>> 2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as
>> backspatter.
>> 3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through
>> the brain.
>> 4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary
>> expanding cavity.
>> 5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped
>> exit hole.
>> 6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues
>> moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the
>> accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped
>> exit wound.
>> 7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter,
>> the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final
>> size depending on how large the internal pressures became."
>>
>> Where is Nr. 5 in your theory? Behind the entering bullet? Oh yes, I
>> forgot, it flies at a speed of 2200 fps in the direction of the head,
>> pierces the bone, blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear,
>> and then it disintegrates into small pieces that no one can find.
>>
>
> She explains what is the normal situation with normal ammunition of the
> type.
> Who says that a shot blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear?
> Have you looked at the photographs of the brain?
> They found LOTS of small pieces in the brain.
> They removed two of them.
>
>> I think even Captain James T. Kirk doesnŽt have this kind of bullets in
>> his arsenal.
>>
>
> They rarely used bullets in outer space. If you think that explosive
> bullets do not exist, then you need to do some reading. And no I am not
> going to demonstrate them for you. They are illegal now for the public.
>
>>
>>>What assumption did I make?
>>
>>
>> Well - let me put it like this: What of your frontal shot scenario is NO
>> assumption?
>>
>
> The entrance wound.

What entrance wound? :-)


>The dozens of dustlike fragments and several larger fragments see in the
>head.

.. could also be from a shot from the rear.

>The acoustical evidence.

... is at least not reliable.

[Anthony Marsh]

Frank Gerber wrote:

>>>>>The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many
>>>>>fps? 600, 700, 800?
>>>>>Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into
>>>>>the direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
>>>>>Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from
>>>>>earth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100 feet
>>>>and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps according
>>>>to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll shot. Bullets
>>>>do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet from the shot
>>>>which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me the damage it
>>>>did. Anything.
>>>>
>>>>Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
>>>>fragments that they found in the limousine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I´m afraid you won´t understand the difference - but I´ll try it:
>>>
>>>The bullet that missed didn´t hit a human skull. It hit a curbstone and
>>>was deflected - maybe it was torn in several pieces which landed
>>>somewhere in Dallas/Texas.
>>
>>You seem confused.
>
>
> I understand that your kind of thinking might lead to such an impression.
>
>
>>If you are asking me where misses went, then I am asking you where misses
>>went.
>>The WC's missed shot might not have hit near Tague. Shoe me the curbstone
>>where you said it hit and prove to me which bullet hit it. The curb near
>>Tague had no copper, as it would from a direct hit by the copper-jacketed
>>bullet. So it's likely that it was hit by only the lead core, a fragment
>>from another shot.
>>And the two large fragments did not necessarily come from the head shot.
>>Diagram for me the trajectory from the head which would deposit them in
>>the front seat. Another possibility is that the two large fragments came
>>from the bullet which hit Connally's wrist.
>
>
> I think I don´t have to show you anything. I try to base my logical
> consequences on facts. I´m not able to detect this kind of proceeding in
> your way of drawing conclusions.
>
>
>>>If someone would have found these pieces after a long, long, long search,
>>>one could have explained why they were found in those places by
>>>calculating velocity, weight, angles, etc.. Mathematics and physics could
>>>have explained their flight paths.
>>>
>>
>>Never. You are imagining things. WC defenders can not now do that for the
>>two large fragments.
>
>
> Why are there two large fragments if Kennedy was shot with a frangible
> bullet from the front? They shouldn´t be there - right?
>

The two large fragments in the front seat came from the bullet which hit
Connally.

>
>>They can't even figure out where a bullet would go after leaving the head
>>ala the HSCA exit wound.
>
>
> What´s wrong with this conclusion: The bullet went through JFK`s head and
> splitted up into two bigger and multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger
> parts hit the inside of the windshield, the other heavy part caused the
> dent in the chrome topping above the windshield. ?
>

That's great if you can diagram the trajectory. But you also have to
take into account some very large fragment which would then have to exit
the forehead (semi-circular defect) leaving the head on a DOWNWARD
trajectory. See the Dale Myers diagram. Then where did this other
fragment go and what did it hit. Show me a photograph documenting the
damage this additional fragment did.

> Why is a frontal shot no imagination?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>See picture! Oh - I guess you´ll say it´s no hole or it´s a fake. Well,
>>>>>I won´t be able to argue against this kind of evidence. That´s simply
>>>>>too much "fact".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What hole?
>>>
>>>
>>>Very funny! See autopsy report and the BOH-photo. I think that the red
>>>spot is the entrance wound and I think it could be just where the autopsy
>>>report places it:
>>
>>Red spot? You mean like on Jupiter? You are talking science fiction.
>>The place that the HSCA identified was FOUR INCHES above where the autopsy
>>report placed their entrance wound.
>
>
> But it placed an entrance wound in the back of the head - like the WC did.
>

Their error.

>
>>>"to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance". My
>>>"bump" is above a drawn line between the tips of my ears. It seems to me
>>>that the red spot in F3 isn´t too far away from this location.
>>
>>"Isn't too far away." I.E. Close enough for a WC defender. You don't care
>>where the wound was as long as it was on the head.
>
>
> Two commissions said the entrance wound was in the back of the head.
> The autopsy photo shows an entrance wound in the back of the head.
> The explosion at Z 313 was to the front.
>

The autopsy photo does not show any entrance hole in the back of the head.

> ...
>
> Why should I accept a theory which moves the entry wound to the front of
> the head? Where is one single piece of hard EVIDENCE for the shot from the
> front?
>
> If you rely on the "accoustical evidence", it´s YOUR decision. I don´t
> know which of the "expertises" is right. Some say it´s evidence of four
> shots, some say it has to be recorded after the shots, some say it´s
> random noise. Because of that I have to ignore the "accoustical evidence"
> for myself.
>

If you simply want to believe whatever the experts tell you, then you
had to stick with the BBN experts back in 1978 and believe in 4 shots.

> I defend nothing. I´m just trying to reach proper conclusions on my own.
>
>
>>>F3 makes no sense without showing something important. Why should they
>>>have taken a photo of Jfk´s washed and combed hairs?
>>
>>Hmm, so you're going to start the "why should" game now? OK, I can play
>>too. Why should they take a photo of the back of the head if they are not
>>going to shave around the wound and document its location and appearance
>>(as Spitz says they should have)?
>>Is there an angle which they did not photograph? The photograph of the
>>back of the head proves that there was no massive exit wound in the back
>>of the head. You do not only photograph points of damage. You also
>>photograph the entire body to prove where there was NO DAMAGE.
>
>
> So they measure NO DAMAGE with a ruler? Medical examiner for protocol: "In
> the back of the head we have no damage. It measures 7 by 14 mm."
>

They were not measuring the "hole" which the HSCA postulated. They were
measuring something they saw near the EOP.

> Or are they holding the head in position with the help of the ruler? Maybe
> they swat a fly with it - who knows?
>

And who suggested using the ruler to document wounds? Finck, not Humes.
But did they shave around the wound as they should have? No.

>
>>Was there an exit or entrance wound on his feet?
>
>
> Why didn´t they make a photo of the NO DAMAGE on the feet if they made a
> photo of the NO DAMGAGE on the back of the head?
>

They did. They took several photos of areas with no damage.

>
>
>>>And if they washed his hair, why didn´t they wash away the red spot?
>>>
>>
>>Wash his hair? OK. Wash his hair. They did not wash his scalp. The blood
>>clot could still remain on his scalp.
>
>
> Yes! It was a very persistent clot what couldn´t be washed off. And
> because the autopsists had never seen such a clot before, they made a
> photo of it.
>

They THOUGHT there was a wound on the back of the head. The blood clot
is NOT what they thought was a wound.

>
>>>>>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>>>>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not
>>>>>>prove
>>>>>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>>>>>Connally's back wounds.
>>>
>>>
>>>YES!! JBC and his wife were spattered with pieces of Jfk´s brain and this
>>>indicates a shot from the right front.
>>>
>>>Sherry Gutierrez didn´t see the crime scene in reality, she didn´t have
>>>pictures from the car just after the shots with the victims sitting in
>>>the car and she used a "target sponge" instead of a human skull.
>>>How credible do you believe is this so-called "analysis"?
>>>
>>
>>It is important. She is an expert in that particular field.
>
>
> Maybe she´s good. But with no data it´s hard to reach the right
> conclusions - even for the best expert.
>
>
>>>In her "analysis" I found the following passage:
>>>
>>>"A bullet interacts with the head in several stages.
>>>1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
>>>2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as
>>>backspatter.
>>>3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through
>>>the brain.
>>>4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary
>>>expanding cavity.
>>>5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped
>>>exit hole.
>>>6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues
>>>moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the
>>>accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped
>>>exit wound.
>>>7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter,
>>>the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final
>>>size depending on how large the internal pressures became."
>>>
>>>Where is Nr. 5 in your theory? Behind the entering bullet? Oh yes, I
>>>forgot, it flies at a speed of 2200 fps in the direction of the head,
>>>pierces the bone, blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear,
>>>and then it disintegrates into small pieces that no one can find.
>>>
>>
>>She explains what is the normal situation with normal ammunition of the
>>type.
>>Who says that a shot blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear?
>>Have you looked at the photographs of the brain?
>>They found LOTS of small pieces in the brain.
>>They removed two of them.
>>
>>
>>>I think even Captain James T. Kirk doesn´t have this kind of bullets in
>>>his arsenal.
>>>
>>
>>They rarely used bullets in outer space. If you think that explosive
>>bullets do not exist, then you need to do some reading. And no I am not
>>going to demonstrate them for you. They are illegal now for the public.
>>
>>
>>>>What assumption did I make?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well - let me put it like this: What of your frontal shot scenario is NO
>>>assumption?
>>>
>>
>>The entrance wound.
>
>
> What entrance wound? :-)
>

The semi-circular defect in the forehead above the right eye.

>
>
>>The dozens of dustlike fragments and several larger fragments see in the
>>head.
>
>
> .. could also be from a shot from the rear.
>

Not with the Oswald ammunition.

>
>>The acoustical evidence.
>
>
> ... is at least not reliable.
>
>
>

[Frank Gerber]

"Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Mo0re.1895$***@trndny01...
> Frank Gerber wrote:
>
>>>>>>The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many
>>>>>>fps? 600, 700, 800?
>>>>>>Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into
>>>>>>the direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
>>>>>>Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from
>>>>>>earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100
>>>>>feet and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps
>>>>>according to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll
>>>>>shot. Bullets do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet
>>>>>from the shot which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me
>>>>>the damage it did. Anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
>>>>>fragments that they found in the limousine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IŽm afraid you wonŽt understand the difference - but IŽll try it:
>>>>
>>>>The bullet that missed didnŽt hit a human skull. It hit a curbstone and
>>>>was deflected - maybe it was torn in several pieces which landed
>>>>somewhere in Dallas/Texas.
>>>
>>>You seem confused.
>>
>>
>> I understand that your kind of thinking might lead to such an impression.
>>
>>
>>>If you are asking me where misses went, then I am asking you where misses
>>>went.
>>>The WC's missed shot might not have hit near Tague. Shoe me the curbstone
>>>where you said it hit and prove to me which bullet hit it. The curb near
>>>Tague had no copper, as it would from a direct hit by the copper-jacketed
>>>bullet. So it's likely that it was hit by only the lead core, a fragment
>>>from another shot.
>>>And the two large fragments did not necessarily come from the head shot.
>>>Diagram for me the trajectory from the head which would deposit them in
>>>the front seat. Another possibility is that the two large fragments came
>>>from the bullet which hit Connally's wrist.
>>
>>
>> I think I donŽt have to show you anything. I try to base my logical
>> consequences on facts. IŽm not able to detect this kind of proceeding in
>> your way of drawing conclusions.
>>
>>
>>>>If someone would have found these pieces after a long, long, long
>>>>search, one could have explained why they were found in those places by
>>>>calculating velocity, weight, angles, etc.. Mathematics and physics
>>>>could have explained their flight paths.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Never. You are imagining things. WC defenders can not now do that for the
>>>two large fragments.
>>
>>
>> Why are there two large fragments if Kennedy was shot with a frangible
>> bullet from the front? They shouldnŽt be there - right?
>>
>
> The two large fragments in the front seat came from the bullet which hit
> Connally.
>
>>
>>>They can't even figure out where a bullet would go after leaving the head
>>>ala the HSCA exit wound.
>>
>>
>> WhatŽs wrong with this conclusion: The bullet went through JFK`s head and
>> splitted up into two bigger and multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger
>> parts hit the inside of the windshield, the other heavy part caused the
>> dent in the chrome topping above the windshield. ?
>>
>
> That's great if you can diagram the trajectory. But you also have to take
> into account some very large fragment which would then have to exit the
> forehead (semi-circular defect) leaving the head on a DOWNWARD trajectory.
> See the Dale Myers diagram. Then where did this other fragment go and what
> did it hit. Show me a photograph documenting the damage this additional
> fragment did.
>
>> Why is a frontal shot no imagination?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>See picture! Oh - I guess youŽll say itŽs no hole or itŽs a fake.
>>>>>>Well, I wonŽt be able to argue against this kind of evidence. ThatŽs
>>>>>>simply too much "fact".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What hole?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Very funny! See autopsy report and the BOH-photo. I think that the red
>>>>spot is the entrance wound and I think it could be just where the
>>>>autopsy report places it:
>>>
>>>Red spot? You mean like on Jupiter? You are talking science fiction.
>>>The place that the HSCA identified was FOUR INCHES above where the
>>>autopsy report placed their entrance wound.
>>
>>
>> But it placed an entrance wound in the back of the head - like the WC
>> did.
>>
>
> Their error.
>
>>
>>>>"to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance". My
>>>>"bump" is above a drawn line between the tips of my ears. It seems to me
>>>>that the red spot in F3 isnŽt too far away from this location.
>>>
>>>"Isn't too far away." I.E. Close enough for a WC defender. You don't care
>>>where the wound was as long as it was on the head.
>>
>>
>> Two commissions said the entrance wound was in the back of the head.
>> The autopsy photo shows an entrance wound in the back of the head.
>> The explosion at Z 313 was to the front.
>>
>
> The autopsy photo does not show any entrance hole in the back of the head.

... but a really, really important blood clot.

And in the autopsy report they confused front and back of the head.

>
>> ...
>>
>> Why should I accept a theory which moves the entry wound to the front of
>> the head? Where is one single piece of hard EVIDENCE for the shot from
>> the front?
>>
>> If you rely on the "accoustical evidence", itŽs YOUR decision. I donŽt
>> know which of the "expertises" is right. Some say itŽs evidence of four
>> shots, some say it has to be recorded after the shots, some say itŽs
>> random noise. Because of that I have to ignore the "accoustical evidence"
>> for myself.
>>
>
> If you simply want to believe whatever the experts tell you, then you had
> to stick with the BBN experts back in 1978 and believe in 4 shots.
>

Not me. Why should I pick out this expertise. Because it fits your
imagination?
I donŽt take the accoustical evidence into account because itŽs not
reliable.

>> I defend nothing. IŽm just trying to reach proper conclusions on my own.
>>
>>
>>>>F3 makes no sense without showing something important. Why should they
>>>>have taken a photo of JfkŽs washed and combed hairs?
>>>
>>>Hmm, so you're going to start the "why should" game now? OK, I can play
>>>too. Why should they take a photo of the back of the head if they are not
>>>going to shave around the wound and document its location and appearance
>>>(as Spitz says they should have)?
>>>Is there an angle which they did not photograph? The photograph of the
>>>back of the head proves that there was no massive exit wound in the back
>>>of the head. You do not only photograph points of damage. You also
>>>photograph the entire body to prove where there was NO DAMAGE.
>>
>>
>> So they measure NO DAMAGE with a ruler? Medical examiner for protocol:
>> "In the back of the head we have no damage. It measures 7 by 14 mm."
>>
>
> They were not measuring the "hole" which the HSCA postulated. They were
> measuring something they saw near the EOP.
>
What could they have seen there? A cootie?

>> Or are they holding the head in position with the help of the ruler?
>> Maybe they swat a fly with it - who knows?
>>
>
> And who suggested using the ruler to document wounds? Finck, not Humes.
> But did they shave around the wound as they should have? No.
>

Well - I think the wound doesnŽt need any shaving. ItŽs rather clear.

>>>Was there an exit or entrance wound on his feet?
>>
>>
>> Why didnŽt they make a photo of the NO DAMAGE on the feet if they made a
>> photo of the NO DAMGAGE on the back of the head?
>>
>
> They did. They took several photos of areas with no damage.
>

Can you show me ONE of them?


>>
>>
>>>>And if they washed his hair, why didnŽt they wash away the red spot?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wash his hair? OK. Wash his hair. They did not wash his scalp. The blood
>>>clot could still remain on his scalp.
>>
>>
>> Yes! It was a very persistent clot what couldnŽt be washed off. And
>> because the autopsists had never seen such a clot before, they made a
>> photo of it.
>>
>
> They THOUGHT there was a wound on the back of the head. The blood clot is
> NOT what they thought was a wound.

And why then did they measure arround in this area? Did they want to know
how long his hairs were? The hair was cleaned and they could examine every
milimeter of the head. They had the skull in their hands and couldnŽt find
the hole? How did they become pathologists? Did they win a contest?

>
>>
>>>>>>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the
>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not
>>>>>>>prove
>>>>>>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>>>>>>Connally's back wounds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>YES!! JBC and his wife were spattered with pieces of JfkŽs brain and
>>>>this indicates a shot from the right front.
>>>>
>>>>Sherry Gutierrez didnŽt see the crime scene in reality, she didnŽt have
>>>>pictures from the car just after the shots with the victims sitting in
>>>>the car and she used a "target sponge" instead of a human skull.
>>>>How credible do you believe is this so-called "analysis"?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is important. She is an expert in that particular field.
>>
>>
>> Maybe sheŽs good. But with no data itŽs hard to reach the right
>> conclusions - even for the best expert.
>>
>>
>>>>In her "analysis" I found the following passage:
>>>>
>>>>"A bullet interacts with the head in several stages.
>>>>1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
>>>>2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole
>>>>as backspatter.
>>>>3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through
>>>>the brain.
>>>>4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary
>>>>expanding cavity.
>>>>5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped
>>>>exit hole.
>>>>6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues
>>>>moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from
>>>>the accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly
>>>>shaped exit wound.
>>>>7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward
>>>>spatter, the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with
>>>>its final size depending on how large the internal pressures became."
>>>>
>>>>Where is Nr. 5 in your theory? Behind the entering bullet? Oh yes, I
>>>>forgot, it flies at a speed of 2200 fps in the direction of the head,
>>>>pierces the bone, blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear,
>>>>and then it disintegrates into small pieces that no one can find.
>>>>
>>>
>>>She explains what is the normal situation with normal ammunition of the
>>>type.
>>>Who says that a shot blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear?
>>>Have you looked at the photographs of the brain?
>>>They found LOTS of small pieces in the brain.
>>>They removed two of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think even Captain James T. Kirk doesnŽt have this kind of bullets in
>>>>his arsenal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They rarely used bullets in outer space. If you think that explosive
>>>bullets do not exist, then you need to do some reading. And no I am not
>>>going to demonstrate them for you. They are illegal now for the public.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>What assumption did I make?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well - let me put it like this: What of your frontal shot scenario is
>>>>NO assumption?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The entrance wound.
>>
>>
>> What entrance wound? :-)
>>
>
> The semi-circular defect in the forehead above the right eye.

... is the exit wound of one of the bullet parts.

>
>>
>>
>>>The dozens of dustlike fragments and several larger fragments see in the
>>>head.
>>
>>
>> .. could also be from a shot from the rear.
>>
>
> Not with the Oswald ammunition.
>
>>
>>>The acoustical evidence.
>>
>>
>> ... is at least not reliable.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Frank Gerber wrote:

> "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:Mo0re.1895$***@trndny01...
>
>>Frank Gerber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many
>>>>>>>fps? 600, 700, 800?
>>>>>>>Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into
>>>>>>>the direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
>>>>>>>Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from
>>>>>>>earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe it hit at about 2150 fps. The distance was only about 100
>>>>>>feet and the muzzle velocity was somewhere between 2200 and 2300 fps
>>>>>>according to the acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy knoll
>>>>>>shot. Bullets do vanish completely from the Earth. Show me the bullet
>>>>>
>>>>>>from the shot which the WC said missed. Show me where it hit. Show me
>>>>>
>>>>>>the damage it did. Anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Show me where the rest of the bullet went which left the two large
>>>>>>fragments that they found in the limousine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I´m afraid you won´t understand the difference - but I´ll try it:
>>>>>
>>>>>The bullet that missed didn´t hit a human skull. It hit a curbstone and
>>>>>was deflected - maybe it was torn in several pieces which landed
>>>>>somewhere in Dallas/Texas.
>>>>
>>>>You seem confused.
>>>
>>>
>>>I understand that your kind of thinking might lead to such an impression.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you are asking me where misses went, then I am asking you where misses
>>>>went.
>>>>The WC's missed shot might not have hit near Tague. Shoe me the curbstone
>>>>where you said it hit and prove to me which bullet hit it. The curb near
>>>>Tague had no copper, as it would from a direct hit by the copper-jacketed
>>>>bullet. So it's likely that it was hit by only the lead core, a fragment
>>>
>>>>from another shot.
>>>
>>>>And the two large fragments did not necessarily come from the head shot.
>>>>Diagram for me the trajectory from the head which would deposit them in
>>>>the front seat. Another possibility is that the two large fragments came
>>>
>>>>from the bullet which hit Connally's wrist.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think I don´t have to show you anything. I try to base my logical
>>>consequences on facts. I´m not able to detect this kind of proceeding in
>>>your way of drawing conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If someone would have found these pieces after a long, long, long
>>>>>search, one could have explained why they were found in those places by
>>>>>calculating velocity, weight, angles, etc.. Mathematics and physics
>>>>>could have explained their flight paths.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Never. You are imagining things. WC defenders can not now do that for the
>>>>two large fragments.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why are there two large fragments if Kennedy was shot with a frangible
>>>bullet from the front? They shouldn´t be there - right?
>>>
>>
>>The two large fragments in the front seat came from the bullet which hit
>>Connally.
>>
>>
>>>>They can't even figure out where a bullet would go after leaving the head
>>>>ala the HSCA exit wound.
>>>
>>>
>>>What´s wrong with this conclusion: The bullet went through JFK`s head and
>>>splitted up into two bigger and multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger
>>>parts hit the inside of the windshield, the other heavy part caused the
>>>dent in the chrome topping above the windshield. ?
>>>
>>
>>That's great if you can diagram the trajectory. But you also have to take
>>into account some very large fragment which would then have to exit the
>>forehead (semi-circular defect) leaving the head on a DOWNWARD trajectory.
>>See the Dale Myers diagram. Then where did this other fragment go and what
>>did it hit. Show me a photograph documenting the damage this additional
>>fragment did.
>>
>>
>>>Why is a frontal shot no imagination?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>See picture! Oh - I guess you´ll say it´s no hole or it´s a fake.
>>>>>>>Well, I won´t be able to argue against this kind of evidence. That´s
>>>>>>>simply too much "fact".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What hole?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Very funny! See autopsy report and the BOH-photo. I think that the red
>>>>>spot is the entrance wound and I think it could be just where the
>>>>>autopsy report places it:
>>>>
>>>>Red spot? You mean like on Jupiter? You are talking science fiction.
>>>>The place that the HSCA identified was FOUR INCHES above where the
>>>>autopsy report placed their entrance wound.
>>>
>>>
>>>But it placed an entrance wound in the back of the head - like the WC
>>>did.
>>>
>>
>>Their error.
>>
>>
>>>>>"to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance". My
>>>>>"bump" is above a drawn line between the tips of my ears. It seems to me
>>>>>that the red spot in F3 isn´t too far away from this location.
>>>>
>>>>"Isn't too far away." I.E. Close enough for a WC defender. You don't care
>>>>where the wound was as long as it was on the head.
>>>
>>>
>>>Two commissions said the entrance wound was in the back of the head.
>>>The autopsy photo shows an entrance wound in the back of the head.
>>>The explosion at Z 313 was to the front.
>>>
>>
>>The autopsy photo does not show any entrance hole in the back of the head.
>
>
> ... but a really, really important blood clot.
>

And also a dab of fat on top of the hair near the hairline.

> And in the autopsy report they confused front and back of the head.
>

Who said that? They thought there was an entrance wound in the back of
the head. Turns out all it was was a dab of fat tissue on top of the
hair. ALL the forensic pathologists made the mistake of assuming that
beveling on the outer table of the skull can ONLY indicate an exit wound.

>
>>>...
>>>
>>>Why should I accept a theory which moves the entry wound to the front of
>>>the head? Where is one single piece of hard EVIDENCE for the shot from
>>>the front?
>>>
>>>If you rely on the "accoustical evidence", it´s YOUR decision. I don´t
>>>know which of the "expertises" is right. Some say it´s evidence of four
>>>shots, some say it has to be recorded after the shots, some say it´s
>>>random noise. Because of that I have to ignore the "accoustical evidence"
>>>for myself.
>>>
>>
>>If you simply want to believe whatever the experts tell you, then you had
>>to stick with the BBN experts back in 1978 and believe in 4 shots.
>>
>
>
> Not me. Why should I pick out this expertise. Because it fits your
> imagination?
> I don´t take the accoustical evidence into account because it´s not
> reliable.
>

Of course it's reliable. A court accepted acoustical evidence and the
defense stipulated as to its scientific validity. On what basis do you
claim that acoustical evidence is not reliable. Just for fun I could
make the same objection about whatever evidence you care to cite.

>
>>>I defend nothing. I´m just trying to reach proper conclusions on my own.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>F3 makes no sense without showing something important. Why should they
>>>>>have taken a photo of Jfk´s washed and combed hairs?
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, so you're going to start the "why should" game now? OK, I can play
>>>>too. Why should they take a photo of the back of the head if they are not
>>>>going to shave around the wound and document its location and appearance
>>>>(as Spitz says they should have)?
>>>>Is there an angle which they did not photograph? The photograph of the
>>>>back of the head proves that there was no massive exit wound in the back
>>>>of the head. You do not only photograph points of damage. You also
>>>>photograph the entire body to prove where there was NO DAMAGE.
>>>
>>>
>>>So they measure NO DAMAGE with a ruler? Medical examiner for protocol:
>>>"In the back of the head we have no damage. It measures 7 by 14 mm."
>>>
>>
>>They were not measuring the "hole" which the HSCA postulated. They were
>>measuring something they saw near the EOP.
>>
>
> What could they have seen there? A cootie?
>

What they thought was a hole.

>
>>>Or are they holding the head in position with the help of the ruler?
>>>Maybe they swat a fly with it - who knows?
>>>
>>
>>And who suggested using the ruler to document wounds? Finck, not Humes.
>>But did they shave around the wound as they should have? No.
>>
>
>
> Well - I think the wound doesn´t need any shaving. It´s rather clear.
>

Then you know nothing about an autopsy. You should ALWAYS shave around
any wound in the hair. See Spitz.

>
>>>>Was there an exit or entrance wound on his feet?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why didn´t they make a photo of the NO DAMAGE on the feet if they made a
>>>photo of the NO DAMGAGE on the back of the head?
>>>
>>
>>They did. They took several photos of areas with no damage.
>>
>
>
> Can you show me ONE of them?
>

Not without permission.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>And if they washed his hair, why didn´t they wash away the red spot?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wash his hair? OK. Wash his hair. They did not wash his scalp. The blood
>>>>clot could still remain on his scalp.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes! It was a very persistent clot what couldn´t be washed off. And
>>>because the autopsists had never seen such a clot before, they made a
>>>photo of it.
>>>
>>
>>They THOUGHT there was a wound on the back of the head. The blood clot is
>>NOT what they thought was a wound.
>
>
> And why then did they measure arround in this area? Did they want to know
> how long his hairs were? The hair was cleaned and they could examine every
> milimeter of the head. They had the skull in their hands and couldn´t find
> the hole? How did they become pathologists? Did they win a contest?
>

How did they become autopsists? Military efficiency. It's called the
Peter Principle. You had better read up on their expertise.

>
>>>>>>>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the
>>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not
>>>>>>>>prove
>>>>>>>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>>>>>>>Connally's back wounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>YES!! JBC and his wife were spattered with pieces of Jfk´s brain and
>>>>>this indicates a shot from the right front.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sherry Gutierrez didn´t see the crime scene in reality, she didn´t have
>>>>>pictures from the car just after the shots with the victims sitting in
>>>>>the car and she used a "target sponge" instead of a human skull.
>>>>>How credible do you believe is this so-called "analysis"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is important. She is an expert in that particular field.
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe she´s good. But with no data it´s hard to reach the right
>>>conclusions - even for the best expert.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>In her "analysis" I found the following passage:
>>>>>
>>>>>"A bullet interacts with the head in several stages.
>>>>>1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
>>>>>2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole
>>>>>as backspatter.
>>>>>3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through
>>>>>the brain.
>>>>>4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary
>>>>>expanding cavity.
>>>>>5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped
>>>>>exit hole.
>>>>>6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues
>>>>>moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from
>>>>>the accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly
>>>>>shaped exit wound.
>>>>>7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward
>>>>>spatter, the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with
>>>>>its final size depending on how large the internal pressures became."
>>>>>
>>>>>Where is Nr. 5 in your theory? Behind the entering bullet? Oh yes, I
>>>>>forgot, it flies at a speed of 2200 fps in the direction of the head,
>>>>>pierces the bone, blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear,
>>>>>and then it disintegrates into small pieces that no one can find.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>She explains what is the normal situation with normal ammunition of the
>>>>type.
>>>>Who says that a shot blows out a quarter of the brain matter to the rear?
>>>>Have you looked at the photographs of the brain?
>>>>They found LOTS of small pieces in the brain.
>>>>They removed two of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think even Captain James T. Kirk doesn´t have this kind of bullets in
>>>>>his arsenal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They rarely used bullets in outer space. If you think that explosive
>>>>bullets do not exist, then you need to do some reading. And no I am not
>>>>going to demonstrate them for you. They are illegal now for the public.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>What assumption did I make?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well - let me put it like this: What of your frontal shot scenario is
>>>>>NO assumption?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The entrance wound.
>>>
>>>
>>>What entrance wound? :-)
>>>
>>
>>The semi-circular defect in the forehead above the right eye.
>
>
> ... is the exit wound of one of the bullet parts.
>

If that were true, then you could diagram for me the exit of that
fragment and show me where it ended up. Do you think it simply stopped
in mid air and then vanished?

>
>>>
>>>>The dozens of dustlike fragments and several larger fragments see in the
>>>>head.
>>>
>>>
>>>.. could also be from a shot from the rear.
>>>
>>
>>Not with the Oswald ammunition.
>>
>>
>>>>The acoustical evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>... is at least not reliable.
>>
>
>
>

From ***@panix.com Wed Jun 15 14:54:50 2005
Status: R
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
Return-Path: <***@google.com>
X-Original-To: ***@panix.com
Received: from out8.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net (out8.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net [207.89.252.214])
by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D08613A784
for <***@panix.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (out8.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net: 207.89.250.162 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of google.com) client-ip=207.89.250.162; envelope-from=***@google.com; helo=shell.core.com;
Received: from shell.core.com (shell.core.com [207.89.250.162])
by out8.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D48DA58E;
Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:54:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by shell.core.com (Postfix)
id A720786288; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ***@shell.core.com
Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56])
by shell.core.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B74B86272
for <***@shell.core.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [64.233.167.4])
by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5FIsWve060521
for <alt-assassination-***@moderators.isc.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from G081002
by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j5FIsVJu019127
for <alt-assassination-***@moderators.isc.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:54:31 -0700
Received: (from ***@localhost)
by Google Production with id j5FIsVVo005772
for alt-assassination-***@moderators.isc.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:54:31 -0700
To: alt-assassination-***@moderators.isc.org
Path: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Cancellare 5--Photo
Date: 15 Jun 2005 11:54:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<***@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>
<***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<***@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.130
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1118861671 5739 127.0.0.1 (15 Jun 2005 18:54:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:54:31 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <***@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.12.116.130;
posting-account=HV9NyAwAAACLVwNKoeRGSu5wmEOLE_Jm
X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender autoqualified);
processed by UCSD_GL-v1.2 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu;
Wed, 15 June 2005 11:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.6 Apr 6 2005 07:48:50, -2.8/5.0 3.0.0)
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 48440 j5FIsWve060521 mailbox4.ucsd.edu)

YES!

The SS Re-enactment of December 4/5th accurately places the impact
point of the third shot at approximately 39 to 40 feet farther down Elm
St.

Thereby placing the impact point of this shot directly in front of Mr.
Altgens who was standing less than 10 feet from the second yellow
stripe painted on the curb of Elm st.

Mary Moorman is standing directly beside the first of these marks, and
the Z-313 shot struck just after JFK had passed this point.

This is the shot which Emmet Hudson; SS Agent Landis, and others saw.

The "Last" shot fired is the one which Mr. Altgens observed strike JFK
when he was directly in front (approximately 15 feet) from his positon.
This shot blew material in the direction of Altgens, caused Jackie to
panic and begin to jump from the car, and resulted in the Harper
fragment which was found considerably farther down Elm St. than the
Z-313 shot.

It is also the shot at which Mr. Hudson refers to as being down by
where the concrete steps/walkway from the stockade fence area intersect
with Elm St.

The Cancellare-5 photo shows both of the yellow marks on the curb,
although only a contrast difference is what is seen.
But, it also demonstrates physically, the approximately 42.5 feet
separation between these marks.

Thereafter, the FBI moved the location of the final shot to in between
the first shot and Z-313. This was "Hoovers" answer to satisfy Johnson
and other political necessity. And although the SS re-enactment data
was virtually suppressed, the Hoover lie was caught when it was found
that the rifle could not be operated fast enough to go along with
Hoover's now shot sequencing.

ERGO! The WC to investigate this highly confusing situation!!!!!!!

Personally, I am certainly glad that they clarified everything for us.


Too bad for them that I have information to the contrary!

Tom

[Brokedad]

As improbable as it may sound, there was no "bullet that missed".

Just as there was no shot from the front.

Tom

[Frank Gerber]

Three shots.

Where did they hit if none of them missed?


"Brokedad" <***@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> As improbable as it may sound, there was no "bullet that missed".
>
> Just as there was no shot from the front.
>
> Tom
>
>

[Brokedad]

In it's most simple explanation, bullet entry wounds into and through
the skull of an individual do not, despite what the HSCA thinks, move
around by approximately 4-inches.

Tom

[Frank Gerber]

Two wounds in the back of the head?


"Brokedad" <***@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In it's most simple explanation, bullet entry wounds into and through
> the skull of an individual do not, despite what the HSCA thinks, move
> around by approximately 4-inches.
>
> Tom
>
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 12 Jun 2005 16:58:44 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>Two wounds in the back of the head?
>
Yes and the are seen in the BOH photo and in F8.
>
>"Brokedad" <***@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> In it's most simple explanation, bullet entry wounds into and through
>> the skull of an individual do not, despite what the HSCA thinks, move
>> around by approximately 4-inches.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Frank Gerber]

Show me please!

"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jun 2005 16:58:44 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Two wounds in the back of the head?
>>
> Yes and the are seen in the BOH photo and in F8.
>>
>>"Brokedad" <***@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> In it's most simple explanation, bullet entry wounds into and through
>>> the skull of an individual do not, despite what the HSCA thinks, move
>>> around by approximately 4-inches.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Ricky
>
> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
> Problems try:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
> Then go to: Issues and evidence
> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
> or
> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 14 Jun 2005 14:02:22 -0500, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
wrote:

>Show me please!

In F3 the BOH photo at the crown near the ruler is a wound and the
protruding brain mass is a wound. Brain swelling causes tissue to
extrude from entry or exit wounds. The hair in this area is also
blurred in an unusual way given the clearness of other hairs.

In F8 the white circle in the dark area several inches from the ruler
is a wound. The inward bent skin in a circular pattern near the ruler
is a wound. It is about 1.2" in diameter and as big as the doctor's
finger tip. This is to big for a 6.5 mm but about .45 cal. bullet
size. An exit/(possible entry) is seen in the bone semicircle which
shows beveling outward in my opinion but it also shows inward beveling
and may be both. It is often difficult to see beveling in a 2
dimensional photo. The bone has a blood stain on it in the size and
shape of the skin wound seen as the black bruise at the skin fold next
to the bone. Bruising occurs because of bleeding into the tissues
thus JFK did not die immediately after shot. His heart continued for
30 minutes due to treatment. A lot can be learned from just the
photos and ignoring all other evidence and theories.
>
>"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On 12 Jun 2005 16:58:44 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Two wounds in the back of the head?
>>>
>> Yes and the are seen in the BOH photo and in F8.
>>>
>>>"Brokedad" <***@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> In it's most simple explanation, bullet entry wounds into and through
>>>> the skull of an individual do not, despite what the HSCA thinks, move
>>>> around by approximately 4-inches.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ricky
>>
>> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
>> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
>> Problems try:
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
>> Then go to: Issues and evidence
>> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
>> or
>> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
>> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Brokedad]

As stated:

Entry wounds into the skull of a human have not been commonly known to
move by approximately 4-inches.

So, one can believe all of the autopsy surgeons as well as others
present who definitely observed the EOP entry.

Or, one can believe the HSCA, etc; which tells us that this wound is in
fact 10cm higher than the EOP entry wound and that all of those at
Bethesda (which includes the FBI & SS) made a pretty good mistake.

Or, one could accept that there is a completely explainable reason as
to why one group observed one entry wound and another group is looking
at a completely different wound.

Of course those familiar with the facts also know that the HSCA entry
does not match in physical dimensions that wound which was measured by
Dr. Humes/Boswell/Fincke; etc.

Therefore, logic should dictate that if they have different physical
dimensions (size) and are located some 4-inches apart, it is not that
likely that we are speaking of the same entry wound into the skull.

Tom

[Robert Harris]

On 15 Jun 2005 17:30:12 -0500, "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
wrote:

>As stated:
>
>Entry wounds into the skull of a human have not been commonly known to
>move by approximately 4-inches.
>
>So, one can believe all of the autopsy surgeons as well as others
>present who definitely observed the EOP entry.
>
>Or, one can believe the HSCA, etc; which tells us that this wound is in
>fact 10cm higher than the EOP entry wound and that all of those at
>Bethesda (which includes the FBI & SS) made a pretty good mistake.
>
>Or, one could accept that there is a completely explainable reason as
>to why one group observed one entry wound and another group is looking
>at a completely different wound.

Yes, just as we would accept the findings of any compete doctors.

One wound was found in the EOP.

One wound was found in the cowlick area, adjacent to a bullet frag
which was right next to it.

(pulling out the calculator)

That comes to a grand total of exactly two wounds.

Now, the problem is, that a bullet travelling 2000-3000 fps just does
not reverse direction and then exit in the opposite direction, from
which it came.

Ergo, those two wounds could only have come from two different bullets
and two different gunshots.

Perhaps, that is why every doctor who examined the head Xrays, and was
not on the govt. payroll, came to exactly the same conclusion - that
JFK was hit in the head, twice - once from the rear and once from the
front.

That was the independant conclusions of Drs. Mantik, Robertson, and
Riley.


>
>Of course those familiar with the facts also know that the HSCA entry
>does not match in physical dimensions that wound which was measured by
>Dr. Humes/Boswell/Fincke; etc.

No, that was an entirely different wound than the EOP wound.

>
>Therefore, logic should dictate that if they have different physical
>dimensions (size) and are located some 4-inches apart, it is not that
>likely that we are speaking of the same entry wound into the skull.

Excellent observation, Tom.


Robert Harris


>
>Tom
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Robert Harris wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2005 17:30:12 -0500, "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>As stated:
>>
>>Entry wounds into the skull of a human have not been commonly known to
>>move by approximately 4-inches.
>>
>>So, one can believe all of the autopsy surgeons as well as others
>>present who definitely observed the EOP entry.
>>
>>Or, one can believe the HSCA, etc; which tells us that this wound is in
>>fact 10cm higher than the EOP entry wound and that all of those at
>>Bethesda (which includes the FBI & SS) made a pretty good mistake.
>>
>>Or, one could accept that there is a completely explainable reason as
>>to why one group observed one entry wound and another group is looking
>>at a completely different wound.
>
>
> Yes, just as we would accept the findings of any compete doctors.
>

That is your mistake. Taking a doctor's word on something which should
be determined by a forensic pathologist. And you should not accept the
findings of competing doctors.

> One wound was found in the EOP.
>

Not exactly, but for those autopsists, close enough.

> One wound was found in the cowlick area, adjacent to a bullet frag
> which was right next to it.
>

Huh? What bullet fragment?

> (pulling out the calculator)
>
> That comes to a grand total of exactly two wounds.
>

Close enough. I suppose you aren't aware that the entrance wound can
also be the exit wound.

> Now, the problem is, that a bullet travelling 2000-3000 fps just does
> not reverse direction and then exit in the opposite direction, from
> which it came.
>

Exactly. Slower bullets can, such as a suicide case where the bullet
ricochets off the inner table of the skull and goes back towards the
entrance wound.

> Ergo, those two wounds could only have come from two different bullets
> and two different gunshots.
>

That is a logical fallacy. One could be an entrance wound and the other
its exit wound.

> Perhaps, that is why every doctor who examined the head Xrays, and was
> not on the govt. payroll, came to exactly the same conclusion - that
> JFK was hit in the head, twice - once from the rear and once from the
> front.
>

Not quite.

> That was the independant conclusions of Drs. Mantik, Robertson, and
> Riley.
>
>
>
>>Of course those familiar with the facts also know that the HSCA entry
>>does not match in physical dimensions that wound which was measured by
>>Dr. Humes/Boswell/Fincke; etc.
>
>
> No, that was an entirely different wound than the EOP wound.
>
>
>>Therefore, logic should dictate that if they have different physical
>>dimensions (size) and are located some 4-inches apart, it is not that
>>likely that we are speaking of the same entry wound into the skull.
>
>
> Excellent observation, Tom.
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>>Tom
>>
>
>
>

[Brokedad]

P.S.

I forgot to mention that the entry point through the scalp of JFK for
the Autopsy/EOP entry wound was even lower, as it was declared to be at
the edge of the hairline, which was in fact also seen by the SS Agents
present at the autopsy.

So, the entry into the scalp for the Autopsy wound vs that of the HSCA
wound, is even more than the 4-inch skull entry separations.

All of which is fully explainable.

Tom

[Anthony Marsh]

Brokedad wrote:

> As stated:
>
> Entry wounds into the skull of a human have not been commonly known to
> move by approximately 4-inches.
>
> So, one can believe all of the autopsy surgeons as well as others
> present who definitely observed the EOP entry.
>
> Or, one can believe the HSCA, etc; which tells us that this wound is in
> fact 10cm higher than the EOP entry wound and that all of those at
> Bethesda (which includes the FBI & SS) made a pretty good mistake.
>
> Or, one could accept that there is a completely explainable reason as
> to why one group observed one entry wound and another group is looking
> at a completely different wound.
>
> Of course those familiar with the facts also know that the HSCA entry
> does not match in physical dimensions that wound which was measured by
> Dr. Humes/Boswell/Fincke; etc.
>
> Therefore, logic should dictate that if they have different physical
> dimensions (size) and are located some 4-inches apart, it is not that
> likely that we are speaking of the same entry wound into the skull.
>

Your logic is too limited. Another alternative is to realize that they
were all wrong and there was no entrance wound on the back of the head.

> Tom
>
>

[Brokedad]

The nice thing about operating with logic is that if applied correctly, it
deals only with the facts, and those conclusions which the known and
established facts support.

No doubt, Mr. Spock could have resolved these issues with little
difficulty as he appears to have not been impaired by the imaginary
thought processes of which the human brain is apparantly so susceptible.

Tom,

[Martin Shackelford]

Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's
head, but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.

Martin

Frank Gerber wrote:
>>>Until now I couldn´t find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
>>>front.
>>>
>>>What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>>>
>>>And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
>>>there must be an exit wound on the left back side of Jfk´s head.
>>>
>
>
>>That is simply not true. You seem to know nothing about ballistics.
>>There are often gunshots to the head where there is ONLY an entrance
>>wound and no exit wound. For example in suicides. Or in executions. Or
>>in assassination attempts. Such as James Brady's head wound. In that
>>case an explosive bullet was used.
>
>
> So there are victims with entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
> That´s fine - but if that´s the case the bullet or pieces of it is/are found
> inside the body.
>
> Jfk had an entrance wound in the back of his head:
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
>>>>hole in the RIGHT back of the head.
>>>>
>
>
>>And so? That doesn't make it a fact.
>
>
> O.k. - I agree, and in fact I don´t believe that there was an exit wound in
> the back of his head.
> But what make YOUR speculations a fact - NOTHING or less than that.
>
>
>>And don´t try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
>
>
>>There is no need to explain a missing exit, because there does not have
>>to be an exit. But I happened to think it was an exploding bullet. That
>>is not the ONLY type that could produce just an entrance wound, but it
>>seems the most likely.
>
>
> The most likely??? O.k. the bullet hits from the front with how many fps?
> 600, 700, 800?
> Then it explodes in such a way that all the energy goes backwards into the
> direction of the shooter (slightly to his right).
> Then the bullet or the pieces of it vanishes/vanish completely from earth.
>
> O. k., you certainly know more about physics and ballistics than I ever will
> be able to understand.
>
> How can anybody believe this?????????????
>
>
>>>won´t believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
>>>head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasn´t
>
>
>>Yes, several pieces of it DID pierce through the brain. There were many
>>tiny fragments in the brain. And scores of dustlike fragments. Not
>>characteristic of FMJ ball ammo.
>
>
> How much of this second magic bullet was found in the head? 0,5%, 1%? And
> the rest of it?
> The bullet broke appart and it didn´t go through as a whole. So the
> fragments can well be explained with the official conclusions.
>
>
>>>damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
>>>familiar to me).
>
>
>>Explosive bullets are not magic. They are real and have been used for
>>over 100 years.
>
>
> Certainly they were - but NONE of them vanished totally.
>
>
>>>The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.
>>>
>
>
>>Then show me the entrance hole on the back of the head.
>
>
> See picture! Oh - I guess you´ll say it´s no hole or it´s a fake. Well, I
> won´t be able to argue against this kind of evidence. That´s simply too much
> "fact".
>
>
>>Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
>>and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
>>shows the explosion of the head to the front.
>>
>
>
>>The blood spatter evidence indicates that the shot came from the right
>>front. Rifle an fired shells found behind and above the car do not prove
>>they caused the head wound. The could have caused Kennedy's and
>>Connally's back wounds.
>
>
>>Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and I´ll believe it.
>>
>
>
>>I doubt it. You already have made so many false assumptions.
>
>
> I made false assumptions? Maybe. But you didn´t make ONE that´s right, IMO.
> And you certainly didn´t prove one of your frontal shot fictions.
>
> Frank
>
>
>

[Frank Gerber]

Hello Martin,

the statements of the Parkland personal is a really good point for the
CTs.

Until now I couldnŽt find an explanation for myself that would make this
statements consistent with the LN-theory in a satisfactory manner.

But if you take the exit wound in the back of the head as a fact, the
consequences are monstrous.

At the moment IŽm weighing the facts I know more for LN as for CT.

But IŽm just a bloody beginner in this case compared to most of you
"professionals".

Maybe IŽll learn something more in the future that makes me believe in an
exit wound in the BOH.

Frank

"Martin Shackelford" <***@concentric.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d8b7t4$***@dispatch.concentric.net...

Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head,
but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.

Martin

[Frank Gerber]

Hello John,

is it possible that IŽve read a book written by you?

Well - first I think that some people really must have seen something that
looked like a wound in the back or on the right back side of the head. But
I doubt that all of them could see the BACK of the head at all. If Jfk was
lying on the operation table in a normal position, the head has to be
turned to the left or lifted to see the part of the head where they are
claiming to have seen a wound.

But itŽs really striking that all of the persons seem to describe the same
thing.

I also could imagine that they have misinterpreted a flap or debris from
the big gaping wound on the right side of the head.

Thank you for your comment, John.

Frank


"John Canal" <***@newsguy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>>
>>Hello Martin,
>>
>>the statements of the Parkland personal is a really good point for the
>>CTs.
>>
>>Until now I couldnŽt find an explanation for myself that would make this
>>statements consistent with the LN-theory in a satisfactory manner.
>
> Don't mean to butt in, but try this for an explanation.
>
> As the bullet penetrated the skull near the EOP it deformed, and deflected
> up(microseconds before it fragmented)...the initial upward direction
> contributing to the fragmentation of the rear skull (the rear scalp,
> meanwhile keeping any rear skull pieces from beeing blown into DP).
>
> There's no doubt (that is, at least in the minds of Barb J., myself, and
> P. Seaton), however, that there a flap of rear right scalp with bone
> adhered to it that moved out of its natural position....and probably
> remained that way until Boswell "smoothed" that flap back into place
> BEFORE the back of the head autopsy photos were taken (F3 series).
>
> The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:
>
> 1. 20 something Parkland witnesses described an orange-sized opening in
> the back of the head.
>
> 2. 10 witnesses even stated or testified they saw cerebellum...that fact
> is consistent with the bottom margin of the out of place piece of
> scalp/bone being at the level of the entry where it was reported to be by
> the autopsists.
>
> 3. Dr. Perry told the highly acclaimed reporter, J. Breslin, that he saw a
> huge flap in the occipito-parietal area of JFK's head.
>
> 4. Boswell's ARRB deposition, pages 98-99:
>
> Gunn: "So, for example was there a fragment that had fallen out at any
> point that you put back into its place before a photograph or x-ray was
> taken?"
>
> Boswell: "Yes."
>
> Some of us argued for a few years that this scenario made excellent
> sense....for those that disagree, I've invested enough time on this issue
> and don't intend on arguing any more....just thought I'd mention it to
> Frank who seems to be able to tell fact from fiction pretty darn well,
> IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Canal
>
>>But if you take the exit wound in the back of the head as a fact, the
>>consequences are monstrous.
>>
>>At the moment IŽm weighing the facts I know more for LN as for CT.
>
>>But IŽm just a bloody beginner in this case compared to most of you
>>"professionals".
>>
>>Maybe IŽll learn something more in the future that makes me believe in an
>>exit wound in the BOH.
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>"Martin Shackelford" <***@concentric.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:d8b7t4$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>
>>Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head,
>>but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert Harris]

On 14 Jun 2005 12:39:27 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
wrote:

>Hello John,
>
>is it possible that I´ve read a book written by you?
>
>Well - first I think that some people really must have seen something that
>looked like a wound in the back or on the right back side of the head. But
>I doubt that all of them could see the BACK of the head at all. If Jfk was
>lying on the operation table in a normal position, the head has to be
>turned to the left or lifted to see the part of the head where they are
>claiming to have seen a wound.

Well, not exactly.

What made it easy for the Parkland medical staff was the fact that the
top of the head was also blown out. There was no problem at all,
looking into that very large cavity and seeing the damage in the BOH.

Dr. Boswell drew a very detailed diagram of the head, and labelled the
larged defect as 17 cm from front to back, much larger than the 13 cm.
Humes described to the WC.

>
>But it´s really striking that all of the persons seem to describe the same
>thing.

Hehe, john would have us believe that the entire staff decided to just
make up a story about nonexistent damage in the back of the head:-)

That just isn't how doctors do things, especially in a murder case
where their statements and documentation can be crucial in a trial.





Robert Harris


>
>I also could imagine that they have misinterpreted a flap or debris from
>the big gaping wound on the right side of the head.
>
>Thank you for your comment, John.
>
>Frank
>
>
>"John Canal" <***@newsguy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>>>
>>>Hello Martin,
>>>
>>>the statements of the Parkland personal is a really good point for the
>>>CTs.
>>>
>>>Until now I couldn´t find an explanation for myself that would make this
>>>statements consistent with the LN-theory in a satisfactory manner.
>>
>> Don't mean to butt in, but try this for an explanation.
>>
>> As the bullet penetrated the skull near the EOP it deformed, and deflected
>> up(microseconds before it fragmented)...the initial upward direction
>> contributing to the fragmentation of the rear skull (the rear scalp,
>> meanwhile keeping any rear skull pieces from beeing blown into DP).
>>
>> There's no doubt (that is, at least in the minds of Barb J., myself, and
>> P. Seaton), however, that there a flap of rear right scalp with bone
>> adhered to it that moved out of its natural position....and probably
>> remained that way until Boswell "smoothed" that flap back into place
>> BEFORE the back of the head autopsy photos were taken (F3 series).
>>
>> The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:
>>
>> 1. 20 something Parkland witnesses described an orange-sized opening in
>> the back of the head.
>>
>> 2. 10 witnesses even stated or testified they saw cerebellum...that fact
>> is consistent with the bottom margin of the out of place piece of
>> scalp/bone being at the level of the entry where it was reported to be by
>> the autopsists.
>>
>> 3. Dr. Perry told the highly acclaimed reporter, J. Breslin, that he saw a
>> huge flap in the occipito-parietal area of JFK's head.
>>
>> 4. Boswell's ARRB deposition, pages 98-99:
>>
>> Gunn: "So, for example was there a fragment that had fallen out at any
>> point that you put back into its place before a photograph or x-ray was
>> taken?"
>>
>> Boswell: "Yes."
>>
>> Some of us argued for a few years that this scenario made excellent
>> sense....for those that disagree, I've invested enough time on this issue
>> and don't intend on arguing any more....just thought I'd mention it to
>> Frank who seems to be able to tell fact from fiction pretty darn well,
>> IMHO.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>>>But if you take the exit wound in the back of the head as a fact, the
>>>consequences are monstrous.
>>>
>>>At the moment I´m weighing the facts I know more for LN as for CT.
>>
>>>But I´m just a bloody beginner in this case compared to most of you
>>>"professionals".
>>>
>>>Maybe I´ll learn something more in the future that makes me believe in an
>>>exit wound in the BOH.
>>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>"Martin Shackelford" <***@concentric.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:d8b7t4$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>
>>>Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head,
>>>but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 14 Jun 2005 12:39:27 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
wrote:

>Hello John,
>
>is it possible that I´ve read a book written by you?
>
>Well - first I think that some people really must have seen something that
>looked like a wound in the back or on the right back side of the head. But
>I doubt that all of them could see the BACK of the head at all. If Jfk was
>lying on the operation table in a normal position, the head has to be
>turned to the left or lifted to see the part of the head where they are
>claiming to have seen a wound.
>
According to the Parkland doctors the head was lifted and turned to
the left as Dr. Clark examined the wound and concluded it was fatal.
All Dr.'s then looked at the wound according to Dr. Peters and a few
others. Even with out lifting and turning much of the wound was
visible. No neck collar was placed and in such cases the head often
moves on the table.

>But it´s really striking that all of the persons seem to describe the same
>thing.
>
>I also could imagine that they have misinterpreted a flap or debris from
>the big gaping wound on the right side of the head.
>
It is hard to misinterpret cerebellar tissue and wound location.
Determining wound location and path is what doctors do in GSW cases.
One has to understand the damage to each possible organ in the case of
chest or abdominal wounds. In head wounds a determination of lower
brain injury to cerebellum or brain stem is almost always fatal and
most certainly is when complicated by massive blood loss and brain
damage.

>Thank you for your comment, John.
>
>Frank
>
>
>"John Canal" <***@newsguy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>>>
>>>Hello Martin,
>>>
>>>the statements of the Parkland personal is a really good point for the
>>>CTs.
>>>
>>>Until now I couldn´t find an explanation for myself that would make this
>>>statements consistent with the LN-theory in a satisfactory manner.
>>
>> Don't mean to butt in, but try this for an explanation.
>>
>> As the bullet penetrated the skull near the EOP it deformed, and deflected
>> up(microseconds before it fragmented)...the initial upward direction
>> contributing to the fragmentation of the rear skull (the rear scalp,
>> meanwhile keeping any rear skull pieces from beeing blown into DP).
>>
>> There's no doubt (that is, at least in the minds of Barb J., myself, and
>> P. Seaton), however, that there a flap of rear right scalp with bone
>> adhered to it that moved out of its natural position....and probably
>> remained that way until Boswell "smoothed" that flap back into place
>> BEFORE the back of the head autopsy photos were taken (F3 series).
>>
>> The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:
>>
>> 1. 20 something Parkland witnesses described an orange-sized opening in
>> the back of the head.
>>
>> 2. 10 witnesses even stated or testified they saw cerebellum...that fact
>> is consistent with the bottom margin of the out of place piece of
>> scalp/bone being at the level of the entry where it was reported to be by
>> the autopsists.
>>
>> 3. Dr. Perry told the highly acclaimed reporter, J. Breslin, that he saw a
>> huge flap in the occipito-parietal area of JFK's head.
>>
>> 4. Boswell's ARRB deposition, pages 98-99:
>>
>> Gunn: "So, for example was there a fragment that had fallen out at any
>> point that you put back into its place before a photograph or x-ray was
>> taken?"
>>
>> Boswell: "Yes."
>>
>> Some of us argued for a few years that this scenario made excellent
>> sense....for those that disagree, I've invested enough time on this issue
>> and don't intend on arguing any more....just thought I'd mention it to
>> Frank who seems to be able to tell fact from fiction pretty darn well,
>> IMHO.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>>>But if you take the exit wound in the back of the head as a fact, the
>>>consequences are monstrous.
>>>
>>>At the moment I´m weighing the facts I know more for LN as for CT.
>>
>>>But I´m just a bloody beginner in this case compared to most of you
>>>"professionals".
>>>
>>>Maybe I´ll learn something more in the future that makes me believe in an
>>>exit wound in the BOH.
>>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>"Martin Shackelford" <***@concentric.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:d8b7t4$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>
>>>Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head,
>>>but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Ricky Tobias]

On 14 Jun 2005 19:12:53 -0400, John Canal <***@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>is it possible that I´ve read a book written by you?
>
>You know what they say..."anything's possible". :-)
>
>>Well - first I think that some people really must have seen something that
>>looked like a wound in the back or on the right back side of the head. But
>>I doubt that all of them could see the BACK of the head at all.
>
>Unless the neurosurgeon Dr. Grossman was lying, he and another neurosurgeon
>[Clark] lifted JFK's head to examine the back of it....and both said they
>thought they saw cerebellum tissue. By itself this might seem hard to believe,
>but eight other witnesses also stated they saw cerebellum tissue.
>
>>If Jfk was
>>lying on the operation table in a normal position, the head has to be
>>turned to the left or lifted to see the part of the head where they are
>>claiming to have seen a wound.
>>
>>But it´s really striking that all of the persons seem to describe the same
>>thing.
>>
>>I also could imagine that they have misinterpreted a flap or debris from
>>the big gaping wound on the right side of the head.
>
>Look at the outset drawing at the bottom of Boswell's face sheet....the one with
>what looks like the top half of an entry hole. Boswell not only told Tom Purtzer
>that drawing represented a piece of skull that fit where the near-EOP entry was
>located, but he also said that in his ARRB deposition. Moreover, unless it's
>some wierd coincidence, the contour of that piece, as drawn, fits very nicely
>onto the contour of JFK's rear skull as seen in F8 (please see the related
>graphic I've attached).
>
>One last point on the contour of the intact rear skull as seen in F8. Only the
>bottom half of the entry can be seen in that photo.

The full skin entry wound can be see as the inward bent skin in a
circle near the ruler. It is about 1/2" diameter or as big as the
doctor's finger tip. Using 8x10s and the ruler size I measure 1/2" or
12 mm which is to big for a 6.5 mm bullet.

>The skull edge to the right
>and to the left of the entry defect is jagged and slanted....if they had cut the
>skull there with a saw, they must have been drunk. More likely, a piece of skull
>(the one Boswell drew) came loose when the bullet penetrated the back of his
>head (near the EOP)

It is the right temple but that's my opinion.

>....but only moved out of position (because it was adhered to
>the rear scalp) enough to allow cerebellum and other brain tissue to exude from
>his head. That would explain why so many wittnesses said they saw a defect
>and/or cerebellum tissue there.
>
>What also makes sense, is that before the skull x-rays were taken, consistent
>with Boswell's ARRB deposition, that piece was replaced (that piece was
>undoubtedly still adhered to the rear scalp which would have made it easy to put
>back).
>
>I know...a lot of speculation...but that's what this is all about--figuring out
>what makes the best sense.
>
Yes but that is due to bad photos. ;-) In most murder cases the
photos are taken with care so that there can be no doubt.

>I'll butt out now.
>
>>Thank you for your comment, John.
>
>No problem. Take care.
>
>John
>
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>"John Canal" <***@newsguy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>>>>
>>>>Hello Martin,
>>>>
>>>>the statements of the Parkland personal is a really good point for the
>>>>CTs.
>>>>
>>>>Until now I couldn´t find an explanation for myself that would make this
>>>>statements consistent with the LN-theory in a satisfactory manner.
>>>
>>> Don't mean to butt in, but try this for an explanation.
>>>
>>> As the bullet penetrated the skull near the EOP it deformed, and deflected
>>> up(microseconds before it fragmented)...the initial upward direction
>>> contributing to the fragmentation of the rear skull (the rear scalp,
>>> meanwhile keeping any rear skull pieces from beeing blown into DP).
>>>
>>> There's no doubt (that is, at least in the minds of Barb J., myself, and
>>> P. Seaton), however, that there a flap of rear right scalp with bone
>>> adhered to it that moved out of its natural position....and probably
>>> remained that way until Boswell "smoothed" that flap back into place
>>> BEFORE the back of the head autopsy photos were taken (F3 series).
>>>
>>> The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:
>>>
>>> 1. 20 something Parkland witnesses described an orange-sized opening in
>>> the back of the head.
>>>
>>> 2. 10 witnesses even stated or testified they saw cerebellum...that fact
>>> is consistent with the bottom margin of the out of place piece of
>>> scalp/bone being at the level of the entry where it was reported to be by
>>> the autopsists.
>>>
>>> 3. Dr. Perry told the highly acclaimed reporter, J. Breslin, that he saw a
>>> huge flap in the occipito-parietal area of JFK's head.
>>>
>>> 4. Boswell's ARRB deposition, pages 98-99:
>>>
>>> Gunn: "So, for example was there a fragment that had fallen out at any
>>> point that you put back into its place before a photograph or x-ray was
>>> taken?"
>>>
>>> Boswell: "Yes."
>>>
>>> Some of us argued for a few years that this scenario made excellent
>>> sense....for those that disagree, I've invested enough time on this issue
>>> and don't intend on arguing any more....just thought I'd mention it to
>>> Frank who seems to be able to tell fact from fiction pretty darn well,
>>> IMHO.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John Canal
>>>
>>>>But if you take the exit wound in the back of the head as a fact, the
>>>>consequences are monstrous.
>>>>
>>>>At the moment I´m weighing the facts I know more for LN as for CT.
>>>
>>>>But I´m just a bloody beginner in this case compared to most of you
>>>>"professionals".
>>>>
>>>>Maybe I´ll learn something more in the future that makes me believe in an
>>>>exit wound in the BOH.
>>>>
>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <***@concentric.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>>news:d8b7t4$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>
>>>>Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head,
>>>>but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

John Canal wrote:

> In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>is it possible that I´ve read a book written by you?
>
>
> You know what they say..."anything's possible". :-)
>
>
>>Well - first I think that some people really must have seen something that
>>looked like a wound in the back or on the right back side of the head. But
>>I doubt that all of them could see the BACK of the head at all.
>
>
> Unless the neurosurgeon Dr. Grossman was lying, he and another neurosurgeon
> [Clark] lifted JFK's head to examine the back of it....and both said they
> thought they saw cerebellum tissue. By itself this might seem hard to believe,
> but eight other witnesses also stated they saw cerebellum tissue.
>

And almost every one of them has recanted that, something that you
forget to point out.

>
>>If Jfk was
>>lying on the operation table in a normal position, the head has to be
>>turned to the left or lifted to see the part of the head where they are
>>claiming to have seen a wound.
>>
>>But it´s really striking that all of the persons seem to describe the same
>>thing.
>>
>>I also could imagine that they have misinterpreted a flap or debris from
>>the big gaping wound on the right side of the head.
>
>
> Look at the outset drawing at the bottom of Boswell's face sheet....the one with
> what looks like the top half of an entry hole. Boswell not only told Tom Purtzer
> that drawing represented a piece of skull that fit where the near-EOP entry was
> located, but he also said that in his ARRB deposition. Moreover, unless it's
> some wierd coincidence, the contour of that piece, as drawn, fits very nicely
> onto the contour of JFK's rear skull as seen in F8 (please see the related
> graphic I've attached).
>

There are several problems with that idea. First, the HSCA diagram shows
an entrance hole in the back of the head near the cowlick area which
is intact and has cracks radiating from it. There is no semi-circular
defect in the back of the head.
Every time someone claims to see an entrance hole in the back of the
head, they cite a perfectly round highlight, not a semi-circular defect
with its other half missing. There is NO skull material missing in the
back of the head according to the autopsy photos. So there is no place
to fit this imaginary fragment which is supposed to complete an entrance
hole.


> One last point on the contour of the intact rear skull as seen in F8. Only the
> bottom half of the entry can be seen in that photo. The skull edge to the right
> and to the left of the entry defect is jagged and slanted....if they had cut the
> skull there with a saw, they must have been drunk. More likely, a piece of skull
> (the one Boswell drew) came loose when the bullet penetrated the back of his
> head (near the EOP)....but only moved out of position (because it was adhered to
> the rear scalp) enough to allow cerebellum and other brain tissue to exude from
> his head. That would explain why so many wittnesses said they saw a defect
> and/or cerebellum tissue there.
>

The imagined entrance wound on the back of the head was much too high to
allow cerebellar tissue to extrude. And the autopsy supplementary photos
show the back of the brain to be intact.

> What also makes sense, is that before the skull x-rays were taken, consistent
> with Boswell's ARRB deposition, that piece was replaced (that piece was
> undoubtedly still adhered to the rear scalp which would have made it easy to put
> back).
>
> I know...a lot of speculation...but that's what this is all about--figuring out
> what makes the best sense.
>
> I'll butt out now.
>
>
>>Thank you for your comment, John.
>
>
> No problem. Take care.
>
> John
>
>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>"John Canal" <***@newsguy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Frank Gerber says...
>>>
>>>>Hello Martin,
>>>>
>>>>the statements of the Parkland personal is a really good point for the
>>>>CTs.
>>>>
>>>>Until now I couldn´t find an explanation for myself that would make this
>>>>statements consistent with the LN-theory in a satisfactory manner.
>>>
>>>Don't mean to butt in, but try this for an explanation.
>>>
>>>As the bullet penetrated the skull near the EOP it deformed, and deflected
>>>up(microseconds before it fragmented)...the initial upward direction
>>>contributing to the fragmentation of the rear skull (the rear scalp,
>>>meanwhile keeping any rear skull pieces from beeing blown into DP).
>>>
>>>There's no doubt (that is, at least in the minds of Barb J., myself, and
>>>P. Seaton), however, that there a flap of rear right scalp with bone
>>>adhered to it that moved out of its natural position....and probably
>>>remained that way until Boswell "smoothed" that flap back into place
>>>BEFORE the back of the head autopsy photos were taken (F3 series).
>>>
>>>The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:
>>>
>>>1. 20 something Parkland witnesses described an orange-sized opening in
>>>the back of the head.
>>>
>>>2. 10 witnesses even stated or testified they saw cerebellum...that fact
>>>is consistent with the bottom margin of the out of place piece of
>>>scalp/bone being at the level of the entry where it was reported to be by
>>>the autopsists.
>>>
>>>3. Dr. Perry told the highly acclaimed reporter, J. Breslin, that he saw a
>>>huge flap in the occipito-parietal area of JFK's head.
>>>
>>>4. Boswell's ARRB deposition, pages 98-99:
>>>
>>>Gunn: "So, for example was there a fragment that had fallen out at any
>>>point that you put back into its place before a photograph or x-ray was
>>>taken?"
>>>
>>>Boswell: "Yes."
>>>
>>>Some of us argued for a few years that this scenario made excellent
>>>sense....for those that disagree, I've invested enough time on this issue
>>>and don't intend on arguing any more....just thought I'd mention it to
>>>Frank who seems to be able to tell fact from fiction pretty darn well,
>>>IMHO.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>John Canal
>>>
>>>
>>>>But if you take the exit wound in the back of the head as a fact, the
>>>>consequences are monstrous.
>>>>
>>>>At the moment I´m weighing the facts I know more for LN as for CT.
>>>
>>>>But I´m just a bloody beginner in this case compared to most of you
>>>>"professionals".
>>>>
>>>>Maybe I´ll learn something more in the future that makes me believe in an
>>>>exit wound in the BOH.
>>>>
>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <***@concentric.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>>news:d8b7t4$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>
>>>>Odd, you don't believe there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head,
>>>>but virtually ALL of the medical personnel who saw the body disagree.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[John Canal]

John Canal wrote:

"Unless the neurosurgeon Dr. Grossman was lying, he and
another neurosurgeon [Clark] lifted JFK's head to examine the back of
it....and both said they thought they saw cerebellum tissue. By itself this
might seem hard to believe, but eight other witnesses also stated they saw
cerebellum tissue.

Anthony Marsh responded with:

"And almost every one of
them has recanted that, something that you forget to point out."

Anthony, you're wrong...I didn't forget. In any case, I [ONCE AGAIN] challenge
you to post the citations backing up your ridiculous claim that "almost every
one of them has recanted that". To jar your memory, once before, after I posted
the citations supporting my statement that ten witnesses said or testified they
thought they saw cerebellum issue, I bet you that you couldn't
provide the appropriate citations backing your counter-claim that "almost every
one of them recanted" those statements............and you rode off into the
sunset. Will you do that again????????????

John Canal

[Ricky Tobias]

On 8 Jun 2005 16:39:03 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>Until now I couldn´t find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
>front.
>
The semicircle in the right temple F1 indicates an entry wound. 30-30
is a known case of a 30-30 bullet at about 60'. A semicircle marks
the entry. The wounds are very similar.

>What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?
>
The semicircle in F1.

>And where do you think went the bullet?

Over the trunk and to the pavement or grass. It probably fragmented
as did the bullet fragments found in the car which would have to come
from The bullet that hit JBC.

>If it hit from the right front
>there must be an exit wound on the left back side of Jfk´s head.
>
No its path appears to exit at the red spot cowlick area in F3 or the
official entry wound. All the damage is reported to the right brain.

>All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
>hole in the RIGHT back of the head.

Yes and several Parkland doctors identified right and left temple
entry wounds.
>
>And don´t try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
>won´t believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
>head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasn´t
>damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
>familiar to me).
>
No. F8 has four possible wounds. The problem with F8 is that nobody
agrees which part of the head we are seeing. JFK's position at 313
and the damage indicate a south bridge shooter which is the same line
of fire from the SN.

>The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.
>
No.

>Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
>and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
>shows the explosion of the head to the front.
>
Entry site bursting occurs in many head wounds. The entry can be
larger than the exit and often one cannot determine the exits because
of the bursting. Entry wounds can usually be determined because they
make round holes and semicircles are formed upon bursting. The
semicircles form a round hole with a missing skin defect. Exit wounds
are often lacerations that do not have missing defects when the skin
is closed.

The problem is that we do not have access to the body and the evidence
was not properly recorded and photographed. Lots of people have been
shot in the head and have had good autopsies. The Army does autopsies
on all the dead and they try to identify how they died in post combat
reports.

>Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and I´ll believe it.
>
30-30 is a hard fact as are photos of other gunshot victims. Prove a
rear shot and I'll believe it. Unfortunately all the JFK photos are
not public and we are left with bad photos of JFK. The government
could produce proof of a rear shot or disprove a frontal shot.

>Frank
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:52 AM
>Subject: Re: 3rd shot
>
>
>> Dave Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>>> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>>> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>>> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>>> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
>> grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
>>
>
>"Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:7mtpe.2099$***@trndny06...
>> Dave Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
>>> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
>>> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
>>> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
>>> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
>> grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
>>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Frank Gerber]

Nice arrows!

Would you please show me a picture of the exit wound!

Thanks!

Frank

"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:***@4ax.com...

[Ricky Tobias]

On 9 Jun 2005 07:29:00 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
wrote:

>Nice arrows!
>
>Would you please show me a picture of the exit wound!
>
Look at the top of the head photos. The HSCA puts the exit at the
corneal suture which would be about an inch in front of an imaginary
line between the ears and about an inch into his hair from his right
forehead hairline. The back of the head wound is the brain blob area
of F3 where hair is blurred.

>Thanks!
>
>Frank
>
>"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ricky Tobias wrote:

> On 9 Jun 2005 07:29:00 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Nice arrows!
>>
>>Would you please show me a picture of the exit wound!
>>
>
> Look at the top of the head photos. The HSCA puts the exit at the
> corneal suture which would be about an inch in front of an imaginary
> line between the ears and about an inch into his hair from his right
> forehead hairline. The back of the head wound is the brain blob area
> of F3 where hair is blurred.
>

The HSCA mislocated the semi-circular defect at the coronal suture.
It is actually in the frontal bone and it is the entrance wound.

>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>
>
> Ricky
>
> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
> Problems try:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
> Then go to: Issues and evidence
> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
> or
> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>

[Frank Gerber]

Ok, so youŽre saying that the entry wound is the semicircle laceration in
JfkŽs front hairline (where your white arrow is pointing).

And you place the exit wound where the HSCA puts it. Right?

Hm! If you look at Z 313 and the position and posture of JfkŽs head, whence
had the bullet to be coming from if the flight path goes your way:
in at the frontal hairline and out only 5 to 7 cm further to the rear and
slightly to the top of the head?

This would be a shot from under the seat of Mrs. Conally - I think there
must be something terribly wrong with this theory!

And it would be a tangential hit. How far do you believe would such a hit
penetrate into the cranial bone? Perhaps 1 cm?
And the explosion of the head also wouldnŽt be like the one you can see in
the Z-film.
There never would be such an amount of brain tissue debris flying around -
and it would be blown in the opposite direction.

Sorry, but I canŽt comprehend your theory.

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd shot - F8+F1+30-30.jpg (1/1)


> On 9 Jun 2005 07:29:00 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
> wrote:
>
>>Nice arrows!
>>
>>Would you please show me a picture of the exit wound!
>>
> Look at the top of the head photos. The HSCA puts the exit at the
> corneal suture which would be about an inch in front of an imaginary
> line between the ears and about an inch into his hair from his right
> forehead hairline. The back of the head wound is the brain blob area
> of F3 where hair is blurred.
>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>
> Ricky
>
> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
> Problems try:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
> Then go to: Issues and evidence
> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
> or
> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 10 Jun 2005 23:21:59 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>Ok, so you´re saying that the entry wound is the semicircle laceration in
>Jfk´s front hairline (where your white arrow is pointing).
>
Yes.

>And you place the exit wound where the HSCA puts it. Right?

No. It is where the HSCA puts the entry in the cowlick or the white
brain blob in the BOH photo (F3 as I recall).
>
>Hm! If you look at Z 313 and the position and posture of Jfk´s head, whence
>had the bullet to be coming from if the flight path goes your way:
>in at the frontal hairline and out only 5 to 7 cm further to the rear and
>slightly to the top of the head?
>
You are confusing official finds with my findings based upon the
public photos.

>This would be a shot from under the seat of Mrs. Conally - I think there
>must be something terribly wrong with this theory!
>
I never said that.

>And it would be a tangential hit.

Possibly but that is not what my stated shots to the head.

>How far do you believe would such a hit
>penetrate into the cranial bone? Perhaps 1 cm?

The bone is about 1/4" thick in most places.

>And the explosion of the head also wouldn´t be like the one you can see in
>the Z-film.

Probably wrong because the bullet velocity must be about 2000 fps.

>There never would be such an amount of brain tissue debris flying around -
>and it would be blown in the opposite direction.
>
>Sorry, but I can´t comprehend your theory.

I find evidence of two and perhaps three bullets to the head. F8 has
evidence of four wounds which are entry-exit and one that is
tangential. They are located in the attached skull.
>
>Frank
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:04 AM
>Subject: Re: 3rd shot - F8+F1+30-30.jpg (1/1)
>
>
>> On 9 Jun 2005 07:29:00 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@12move.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Nice arrows!
>>>
>>>Would you please show me a picture of the exit wound!
>>>
>> Look at the top of the head photos. The HSCA puts the exit at the
>> corneal suture which would be about an inch in front of an imaginary
>> line between the ears and about an inch into his hair from his right
>> forehead hairline. The back of the head wound is the brain blob area
>> of F3 where hair is blurred.
>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ricky
>>
>> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
>> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
>> Problems try:
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
>> Then go to: Issues and evidence
>> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
>> or
>> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
>> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Frank Gerber]

> No. It is where the HSCA puts the entry in the cowlick or the white
> brain blob in the BOH photo (F3 as I recall).

But the occipital bone was beveled out on the inner surface. So the
BOH-wound has to be an entry wound!

>>
>>Hm! If you look at Z 313 and the position and posture of JfkŽs head,
>>whence
>>had the bullet to be coming from if the flight path goes your way:
>>in at the frontal hairline and out only 5 to 7 cm further to the rear and
>>slightly to the top of the head?
>>
> You are confusing official finds with my findings based upon the
> public photos.
>
>>This would be a shot from under the seat of Mrs. Conally - I think there
>>must be something terribly wrong with this theory!
>>
> I never said that.
>
>>And it would be a tangential hit.
>
> Possibly but that is not what my stated shots to the head.
>
>>How far do you believe would such a hit
>>penetrate into the cranial bone? Perhaps 1 cm?
>
> The bone is about 1/4" thick in most places.
>
>>And the explosion of the head also wouldnŽt be like the one you can see in
>>the Z-film.
>
> Probably wrong because the bullet velocity must be about 2000 fps.
>
>>There never would be such an amount of brain tissue debris flying around -
>>and it would be blown in the opposite direction.
>>
>>Sorry, but I canŽt comprehend your theory.
>
> I find evidence of two and perhaps three bullets to the head. F8 has
> evidence of four wounds which are entry-exit and one that is
> tangential. They are located in the attached skull.

If you orient F8 like Groden I believe you are coming from false bases.

I think that F8 is oriented correctly by putting the ruler to the top. The
semicircular defect in the front is beveled out to the front and
consequently an exit defect. And your entry wound in the frontal hairline
would be the relating laceration of this exit wound.

Frank

[Ricky Tobias]

On 11 Jun 2005 21:51:16 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>
>> No. It is where the HSCA puts the entry in the cowlick or the white
>> brain blob in the BOH photo (F3 as I recall).
>
>But the occipital bone was beveled out on the inner surface. So the
>BOH-wound has to be an entry wound!
>
Wrong. Bullets cause several things that indicate direction and
beveling is only one and it is not conclusive. Skin edges at the
wound site are more definitive of direction. Beveling can occur to
both aspects of the skull so that it is beveled both inward and
outward especially in multiple shots to the head and in bursting
wounds like JFK. The problem is that JFK got the worst autopsy
imaginable. Dr. Wilbur wrote a book documenting over a hundred errors
which was used by the HSCA.

>>>
>>>Hm! If you look at Z 313 and the position and posture of Jfk´s head,
>>>whence
>>>had the bullet to be coming from if the flight path goes your way:
>>>in at the frontal hairline and out only 5 to 7 cm further to the rear and
>>>slightly to the top of the head?
>>>
>> You are confusing official finds with my findings based upon the
>> public photos.
>>
>>>This would be a shot from under the seat of Mrs. Conally - I think there
>>>must be something terribly wrong with this theory!
>>>
>> I never said that.
>>
>>>And it would be a tangential hit.
>>
>> Possibly but that is not what my stated shots to the head.
>>
>>>How far do you believe would such a hit
>>>penetrate into the cranial bone? Perhaps 1 cm?
>>
>> The bone is about 1/4" thick in most places.
>>
>>>And the explosion of the head also wouldn´t be like the one you can see in
>>>the Z-film.
>>
>> Probably wrong because the bullet velocity must be about 2000 fps.
>>
>>>There never would be such an amount of brain tissue debris flying around -
>>>and it would be blown in the opposite direction.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I can´t comprehend your theory.
>>
>> I find evidence of two and perhaps three bullets to the head. F8 has
>> evidence of four wounds which are entry-exit and one that is
>> tangential. They are located in the attached skull.
>
>If you orient F8 like Groden I believe you are coming from false bases.
>
No one knows how to orient F8 and I have tried all of them.

>I think that F8 is oriented correctly by putting the ruler to the top. The
>semicircular defect in the front is beveled out to the front and
>consequently an exit defect. And your entry wound in the frontal hairline
>would be the relating laceration of this exit wound.
>
The coverup works by calling entry exit and exit entry and ignoring
conflicting evidence. One stages F8 by rotating the head full right
and then take it so close up that no clearly identified body parts are
seen. Skin and even bone can be out of place in this photo. Because
of this I looked for similar wounds and skin segments in all the
photos trying to match them with F8. My orientation is due to
F8+F1+30-30. I need to see all the original photos.

Paul has most of them documented on his site.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/sixpix/f8eop.htm

>Frank
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ricky Tobias wrote:

> On 11 Jun 2005 21:51:16 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>No. It is where the HSCA puts the entry in the cowlick or the white
>>>brain blob in the BOH photo (F3 as I recall).
>>
>>But the occipital bone was beveled out on the inner surface. So the
>>BOH-wound has to be an entry wound!
>>
>
> Wrong. Bullets cause several things that indicate direction and
> beveling is only one and it is not conclusive. Skin edges at the
> wound site are more definitive of direction. Beveling can occur to
> both aspects of the skull so that it is beveled both inward and
> outward especially in multiple shots to the head and in bursting
> wounds like JFK. The problem is that JFK got the worst autopsy
> imaginable. Dr. Wilbur wrote a book documenting over a hundred errors
> which was used by the HSCA.
>
>
>>>>Hm! If you look at Z 313 and the position and posture of Jfk´s head,
>>>>whence
>>>>had the bullet to be coming from if the flight path goes your way:
>>>>in at the frontal hairline and out only 5 to 7 cm further to the rear and
>>>>slightly to the top of the head?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are confusing official finds with my findings based upon the
>>>public photos.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This would be a shot from under the seat of Mrs. Conally - I think there
>>>>must be something terribly wrong with this theory!
>>>>
>>>
>>>I never said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And it would be a tangential hit.
>>>
>>>Possibly but that is not what my stated shots to the head.
>>>
>>>
>>>>How far do you believe would such a hit
>>>>penetrate into the cranial bone? Perhaps 1 cm?
>>>
>>>The bone is about 1/4" thick in most places.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the explosion of the head also wouldn´t be like the one you can see in
>>>>the Z-film.
>>>
>>>Probably wrong because the bullet velocity must be about 2000 fps.
>>>
>>>
>>>>There never would be such an amount of brain tissue debris flying around -
>>>>and it would be blown in the opposite direction.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but I can´t comprehend your theory.
>>>
>>>I find evidence of two and perhaps three bullets to the head. F8 has
>>>evidence of four wounds which are entry-exit and one that is
>>>tangential. They are located in the attached skull.
>>
>>If you orient F8 like Groden I believe you are coming from false bases.
>>
>
> No one knows how to orient F8 and I have tried all of them.
>

I do.

>
>>I think that F8 is oriented correctly by putting the ruler to the top. The
>>semicircular defect in the front is beveled out to the front and
>>consequently an exit defect. And your entry wound in the frontal hairline
>>would be the relating laceration of this exit wound.
>>
>
> The coverup works by calling entry exit and exit entry and ignoring
> conflicting evidence. One stages F8 by rotating the head full right
> and then take it so close up that no clearly identified body parts are
> seen. Skin and even bone can be out of place in this photo. Because
> of this I looked for similar wounds and skin segments in all the
> photos trying to match them with F8. My orientation is due to
> F8+F1+30-30. I need to see all the original photos.
>
> Paul has most of them documented on his site.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/sixpix/f8eop.htm
>
>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>
>
> Ricky
>
> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
> Problems try:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
> Then go to: Issues and evidence
> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
> or
> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 12 Jun 2005 16:58:07 -0400, Anthony Marsh <***@quik.com> wrote:

>Ricky Tobias wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jun 2005 21:51:16 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>No. It is where the HSCA puts the entry in the cowlick or the white
>>>>brain blob in the BOH photo (F3 as I recall).
>>>
>>>But the occipital bone was beveled out on the inner surface. So the
>>>BOH-wound has to be an entry wound!
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. Bullets cause several things that indicate direction and
>> beveling is only one and it is not conclusive. Skin edges at the
>> wound site are more definitive of direction. Beveling can occur to
>> both aspects of the skull so that it is beveled both inward and
>> outward especially in multiple shots to the head and in bursting
>> wounds like JFK. The problem is that JFK got the worst autopsy
>> imaginable. Dr. Wilbur wrote a book documenting over a hundred errors
>> which was used by the HSCA.
>>
>>
>>>>>Hm! If you look at Z 313 and the position and posture of Jfk´s head,
>>>>>whence
>>>>>had the bullet to be coming from if the flight path goes your way:
>>>>>in at the frontal hairline and out only 5 to 7 cm further to the rear and
>>>>>slightly to the top of the head?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are confusing official finds with my findings based upon the
>>>>public photos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This would be a shot from under the seat of Mrs. Conally - I think there
>>>>>must be something terribly wrong with this theory!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I never said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And it would be a tangential hit.
>>>>
>>>>Possibly but that is not what my stated shots to the head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How far do you believe would such a hit
>>>>>penetrate into the cranial bone? Perhaps 1 cm?
>>>>
>>>>The bone is about 1/4" thick in most places.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And the explosion of the head also wouldn´t be like the one you can see in
>>>>>the Z-film.
>>>>
>>>>Probably wrong because the bullet velocity must be about 2000 fps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There never would be such an amount of brain tissue debris flying around -
>>>>>and it would be blown in the opposite direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I can´t comprehend your theory.
>>>>
>>>>I find evidence of two and perhaps three bullets to the head. F8 has
>>>>evidence of four wounds which are entry-exit and one that is
>>>>tangential. They are located in the attached skull.
>>>
>>>If you orient F8 like Groden I believe you are coming from false bases.
>>>
>>
>> No one knows how to orient F8 and I have tried all of them.
>>
>
>I do.

I disagree as do many others.
>
>>
>>>I think that F8 is oriented correctly by putting the ruler to the top. The
>>>semicircular defect in the front is beveled out to the front and
>>>consequently an exit defect. And your entry wound in the frontal hairline
>>>would be the relating laceration of this exit wound.
>>>
>>
>> The coverup works by calling entry exit and exit entry and ignoring
>> conflicting evidence. One stages F8 by rotating the head full right
>> and then take it so close up that no clearly identified body parts are
>> seen. Skin and even bone can be out of place in this photo. Because
>> of this I looked for similar wounds and skin segments in all the
>> photos trying to match them with F8. My orientation is due to
>> F8+F1+30-30. I need to see all the original photos.
>>
>> Paul has most of them documented on his site.
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm
>>
>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/sixpix/f8eop.htm
>>
>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ricky
>>
>> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
>> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
>> Problems try:
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
>> Then go to: Issues and evidence
>> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
>> or
>> go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
>> Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
>>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Brokedad]

"But the occipital bone was beveled out on the inner surface. So the
BOH-wound has to be an entry wound!"


Frank:

It is often best not to confuse people with the FACTS!

Tom

[Ricky Tobias]

On 12 Jun 2005 12:16:32 -0400, "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
wrote:

>"But the occipital bone was beveled out on the inner surface. So the
>BOH-wound has to be an entry wound!"
>
>
>Frank:
>
>It is often best not to confuse people with the FACTS!
>
It is often best to understand the facts before you get confused by
the exceptions to general impressions.

Fact beveling does not always indicate direction of impact. See
Fisher & Spits and Di Mio. Some times the bones have beveling both
inward and outward as in multiple shots to the head and bursting head
wounds. Several think that double beveling is present in the F8
semicircle in the bone. The skin must also be examined and it is
often the most accurate indicator of direction.

Fact the F8 photo shows a blood stain on the bone in the size and
shape of the skin wound which is seen as the black area in the skin as
it is folded over the bone. The blood dried and left a stain on the
bone during transport because of a hole in the skin. During transport
JFK's skin wound was over this bone and not the bone wound due to the
bursting and wrapping of the head. (You can take a whole chicken and
cut a 1/2 to 1 inch hole in any shape in the skin but not into the
meat. Cover the area with some bloody fluids from the chicken or use
your own blood and let it dry. Remove the skin and on the remaining
meat you will see the skin wound you created in the dry stain.) The
autopsy fails to deal with this fact saying no skin exit wound was
found. Using the LN accepted orientation the skin wound was clearly
identifiable and should be seen in the photos. Using the CT
orientations a clearly defined entry wound in the right front is
present.

The evidence in F8 cannot be denied and does not reflect the official
findings.

see attached.

>Tom
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Brokedad]

Frank, there is nothing difficult in proving the "Frontal Shot"

1. We begin with certain researchers who can hold an autopsy
photograph up to there head and thereafter see 30/30 bullet entrance
wounds.

This is a highly skilled exercise which only the most advanced and top
graduates from the Kresgin School of para-physics are qualified in.

Thereafter, this highly reliable evidence is reinforced by the fact
that JFK had an injury to the back of his skull which has never been
fully explained to the satisfaction of many.

2. Of course, one must also secure a pre-frontal lobotomy in order to
assist in ignoring the facts that absolutely no one present at the
autopsy of JFK observed any indication of a frontal shot, and this fact
has been upheld by every investigation thereafter.

Tom

[Robert Harris]

In article <***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com> wrote:

> Until now I couldnŽt find a single piece of evidence for a shot from the
> front.
>
> What makes you believe that there was a frontal shot?



All that is explained in the following article:

http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html

Read it carefully, and then let us know if there is anything there at
all, that you doubt.





Robert Harris




>
> And where do you think went the bullet? If it hit from the right front
> there must be an exit wound on the left back side of JfkŽs head.
>
> All I learned about the head wound is that some people think they saw a
> hole in the RIGHT back of the head.
>
> And donŽt try to explain the missing exit wound by an exploding bullet. I
> wonŽt believe that no single piece of it would have pierced through the
> head on a direct line. But the whole left side of the brain wasnŽt
> damaged. This would really need to be done by a magic bullet (sounds
> familiar to me).
>
> The only reasonable conclusion for me: One shot to the head from behind.
>
> Evidence: autopsy report, autopsy pictures, z-film, blood-spatter, rifle
> and fired shells found behind and above the car, ... Plus ... the Z-film
> shows the explosion of the head to the front.
>
> Prove a frontal shot by hard facts and IŽll believe it.
>
> Frank
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:52 AM
> Subject: Re: 3rd shot
>
>
> > Dave Hicks wrote:
> >
> >> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
> >> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
> >> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
> >> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
> >> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
> > grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
> >
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <***@quik.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:7mtpe.2099$***@trndny06...
> > Dave Hicks wrote:
> >
> >> I have no clue as to the answer of the original question... I'm still
> >> trying to figure it out myself. But what I do wonder is if the second
> >> shot is the one at Z313 as some in this thread have suggested, why
> >> would a third shot even be fired? It seems that it would be "mission
> >> accomplished" after the shot at Z313.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Because the TSBD shooter had already started pulling the trigger when the
> > grassy knoll shot hit JFK at Z-313.
> >
>
>
>

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

[Martin Shackelford]

Five or six witnesses reported a shot hitting the street in the vicinity
of the limousine--likely the first shot. Given that the entire motorcade
passed over the pavement after that, there would be no way of
differentiating between pavement damage from a tangential shot and a
variety of other pavement damage from other causes. Making it even more
difficult is that the witnesses couldn't agree on exactly where the shot
struck the pavement.

Some have theorized that a fragment from this shot may have hit Kennedy in
the back, which would explain a shallow entry, and something dropping out
of the back as described by some at the autopsy.

The theory that a shot went through Kennedy and then through Connally
remains just that--a theory. A bullet passing through Kennedy, from the
back to the throat, was theorized by the autopsy doctors the next day,
when they received new information, but no longer had the body available
to examine. Of course, there are also reports that they had this
information earlier, so this is also ambiguous. Problems with the theory
include:

1) The throat wound and the back wound are virtually identical--both
classic entrance wounds.

2)The House Assassinations Committee found an UPWARD path through Kennedy
between the two wounds, and yet the path through Connally was DOWNWARD.

3) The autopsy doctors could find no bullet track between the two wounds,
only a back wound so shallow that they could feel the end of the track by
inserting a gloved finger.

Connally may have been hit twice.

When Kennedy was hit in the head, matter went forward, sideways, upward
and backward, making it difficult to use that to determine the direction
of the shot. A trail of fragments in the skull X-rays appears near the top
of the head, but may be an illusion of random fragments, as it doesn't
match any clear entrance or exit locations.

The reported location of the entrance wound in the head matches a fracture
pattern in the X-ray, but is too low to relate to the "fragment trail."

Nearly ALL medical witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda insist there
was a fist-sized hole in the right rear of Kennedy's head. If this is
true, and it likely is, the rear head autopsy photos were taken AFTER this
part of the head was reconstructed, making it appear there was no such
wound.

According to James Tague, who was slightly injured by a curb fragment when
a missed shot hit, the curb was hit AFTER the first shot, but before the
head shot.

The difficulty, of course, is that when everything is put together, it
is very difficult to explain it all with only three shots.

Martin

Frank Gerber wrote:
> Hi!
>
> By reading different articles, reports and books one question came to my
> mind:
>
> Where the hell (sorry!) was the impact of the third shot (first, second or
> third doesn´t matter here)?
>
> If I understood what I´ve read, we have one impact in JFK´s back or neck,
> the bullet went on through JBC and remained in his thigh.
>
> The second went through JFKs head and splitted up in two bigger and
> multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger parts hit the inside of the
> windshield, the other heavy part caused the dent in the chrome topping
> above the windshield.
>
> Somewhere I read of witnesses who saw a bullet hitting the street behind
> the presidental limousine. Where is a photo of this impact? If there is no
> picture of this piece of evidence, why is there no such picture? If there
> is no picture, would it be consistent to assume that there was no impact
> in the paving?
>
> We have a picture presumably of a bullet impact at the curbstone far down
> Elmstreet. If this is the impact of the third shot, how can this line of
> fire (from the 6th floor window) be consistent with a shot around frame
> 160? Wouldn´t it not be more consistent to conclude that the first two
> shots were hits and the third shot was the miss (after the head shot)?
>
> I´m just reading the book "From Love Field" by Nellie Connaly. She states
> that the first shot hit Jfk, a SECOND ONE hit her husband and the third
> one was the shot at frame 313. This would make three shots and three hits.
> I think I saw a two different interviews with JBC where he makes a
> statement which corresponds to the statements of his wife - that he wasn´t
> hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
>
> O. k. : Where do you think is the impact of the third bullet?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Brokedad]

Actually, there is nothing difficult in explanation of the wounds of
JFK and JBC, as well as the concrete curb strike.

Provided of course that one sticks with FACT!

As example:

"Five or six witnesses reported a shot hitting the street".

Actually, several witnesses claimed that they saw or thought they saw
something strike the pavement of Elm St.
On witness even claimed that she thought she saw "sparks" fly/emit from
the striking.

1. Creative Writing--101, has converted this to seeing bullets/shots
strike the street.
2. Creative minds have converted this to multiple/many shots.
3. This misconception has converted this to multiple assassins.

The invalidity of much of this can be seen in attempting to get ANY
bullet to create sparks upon striking an asphalt street. Especially a
copper jacketed bullet.
Even were such a bullet to strike a hard gravel rock, made of flint,
the possibility of creation of a spark is nil.
Not to mention the even less likely capability of the lead core of a
bullet to create a spark.

Steel jacketed bullets could perhaps do so, however, they also hold
their structure quite well as they are designed to penetrate armored
vehicles.

Any bullet which struck the asphalt would have, just as with the curb
strike, left evidence which could have been easily found.
Vehicle traffic would not obliterate the copper or lead residue which
would remain, nor would the cratering of the asphalt just disappear.

Nevertheless, there are those who continue to cling to this highly
unlikely aspect, and continue to repeat it, in order to either convince
themselves, or others of the wisdom of their solutions.

Tom

Tom

[Frank Gerber]

> Any bullet which struck the asphalt would have, just as with the curb
> strike, left evidence which could have been easily found.
> Vehicle traffic would not obliterate the copper or lead residue which
> would remain, nor would the cratering of the asphalt just disappear.

I fully agree with that. If a bullet would have hit the street a mark
should be very obvious. And a shot from the 6th floor of the DPD certainly
wouldnŽt be a tangential hit.

Because of that I think we can assume that there was no hit on the paving
of Elm Street.

Then we have the following possibilities left: - One of the three shots
hit the curb and a chip of concrete or from the bullet wounded Mr. Tague.
- One of the three shots hit near the manhole cover and a chip of concrete
or from this bullet wounded Mr. Tague.

If we have a total of three shots and two hits inside the car, how can two
hits outside of the car be explained? Could a piece of the bullet from the
head shot make the mark near the manhole cover? I think it couldnŽt
because most parts of this bullet were found within the car.

Could a piece of the bullet from the head shot make the mark on the curb
down Elm Street?
I think it couldnŽt because the windshield would have blocked the pieces
of the bullet (what it did in fact).

So there remains a direct hit at the curb.

And what made the mark near the manhole?

>
> Nevertheless, there are those who continue to cling to this highly
> unlikely aspect, and continue to repeat it, in order to either convince
> themselves, or others of the wisdom of their solutions.
>
> Tom
>
> Tom
>
>

[Ricky Tobias]

On 7 Jun 2005 22:29:31 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>> Any bullet which struck the asphalt would have, just as with the curb
>> strike, left evidence which could have been easily found.
>> Vehicle traffic would not obliterate the copper or lead residue which
>> would remain, nor would the cratering of the asphalt just disappear.
>
>I fully agree with that. If a bullet would have hit the street a mark
>should be very obvious. And a shot from the 6th floor of the DPD certainly
>wouldn´t be a tangential hit.
>
>Because of that I think we can assume that there was no hit on the paving
>of Elm Street.
>
Wrong. No hit to the pavement was found or investigated by DPD.

>Then we have the following possibilities left: - One of the three shots
>hit the curb and a chip of concrete or from the bullet wounded Mr. Tague.
>- One of the three shots hit near the manhole cover and a chip of concrete
>or from this bullet wounded Mr. Tague.
>
The manhole shot did not hit the concrete. All reports say it was in
the grass.

>If we have a total of three shots and two hits inside the car, how can two
>hits outside of the car be explained? Could a piece of the bullet from the
>head shot make the mark near the manhole cover? I think it couldn´t
>because most parts of this bullet were found within the car.
>
True. The one and only one missed shot hits near the manhole in the
grass and then hits the curb to cause Tague's wound. Another magic
bullet!

>Could a piece of the bullet from the head shot make the mark on the curb
>down Elm Street?
> I think it couldn´t because the windshield would have blocked the pieces
>of the bullet (what it did in fact).
>
>So there remains a direct hit at the curb.
>
>And what made the mark near the manhole?
>
>>
>> Nevertheless, there are those who continue to cling to this highly
>> unlikely aspect, and continue to repeat it, in order to either convince
>> themselves, or others of the wisdom of their solutions.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

Brokedad wrote:

> Actually, there is nothing difficult in explanation of the wounds of
> JFK and JBC, as well as the concrete curb strike.
>
> Provided of course that one sticks with FACT!
>
> As example:
>
> "Five or six witnesses reported a shot hitting the street".
>
> Actually, several witnesses claimed that they saw or thought they saw
> something strike the pavement of Elm St.
> On witness even claimed that she thought she saw "sparks" fly/emit from
> the striking.
>
> 1. Creative Writing--101, has converted this to seeing bullets/shots
> strike the street.
> 2. Creative minds have converted this to multiple/many shots.
> 3. This misconception has converted this to multiple assassins.
>
> The invalidity of much of this can be seen in attempting to get ANY
> bullet to create sparks upon striking an asphalt street. Especially a
> copper jacketed bullet.

You are committing a logical fallacy. Using the exception to represent
the rule. One witness out of how many said sparks? We can ignore her.
And who said the bullet was copper jacketed? You need to prove which
shot it was fired from where. And it could have lost its copper jacket
by then. It might have been only a fragment which people saw hit.
It certainly was only the lead core which struck the curb near Tague.
And one of the fragments found in the limousine was only the copper
jacket, missing its lead core. Where do you think that lead core went?

> Even were such a bullet to strike a hard gravel rock, made of flint,
> the possibility of creation of a spark is nil.

So what? Witnesses are often mistaken.

> Not to mention the even less likely capability of the lead core of a
> bullet to create a spark.
>
> Steel jacketed bullets could perhaps do so, however, they also hold
> their structure quite well as they are designed to penetrate armored
> vehicles.
>
> Any bullet which struck the asphalt would have, just as with the curb
> strike, left evidence which could have been easily found.

Just as they tried to ignore the Tague curb mark and destroy that evidence?

> Vehicle traffic would not obliterate the copper or lead residue which
> would remain, nor would the cratering of the asphalt just disappear.
>

Hoover tried to claim that rain had obliterated the evidence of the
bullet strike on the curb.

> Nevertheless, there are those who continue to cling to this highly
> unlikely aspect, and continue to repeat it, in order to either convince
> themselves, or others of the wisdom of their solutions.
>

It's just difficult to fit it into a shooting scenario.

> Tom
>
> Tom
>
>

[Brokedad]

If recalled correctly, the sparks supposedly were created at the rear
of the Presidential Limousine.

One should therefore ask why none of these trained SS Agents observed
such a phenomenon; how they avoided being struck; and why at least one
claims that the first shot struck JFK.

To include of course those other eyewitnesses who claim that the first
shot struck JFK as well.


There is nothing that I am aware of that makes the Tague hit
"difficult" to fit into the shooting scenario.

The arguement that a fragment from the head shot "could not" travel
that distance and do the damage to the curb is like attemting to state
that neither could a fragment from the head shot fracture the wrist
bone of JBC.

It could, it did!

And, even one of the Parkland Doctors told them this was the probable
cause of the wrist wound.

Tom

[Ricky Tobias]

On 7 Jun 2005 11:30:05 -0400, "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
wrote:

>Actually, there is nothing difficult in explanation of the wounds of
>JFK and JBC, as well as the concrete curb strike.
>
>Provided of course that one sticks with FACT!
>
>As example:
>
>"Five or six witnesses reported a shot hitting the street".
>
>Actually, several witnesses claimed that they saw or thought they saw
>something strike the pavement of Elm St.
>On witness even claimed that she thought she saw "sparks" fly/emit from
>the striking.
>
>1. Creative Writing--101, has converted this to seeing bullets/shots
>strike the street.
>2. Creative minds have converted this to multiple/many shots.
>3. This misconception has converted this to multiple assassins.
>
We have photos and statements of a bullet impact near the manhole on
south Elm. It is a fact and it cannot be ignored.


>The invalidity of much of this can be seen in attempting to get ANY
>bullet to create sparks upon striking an asphalt street. Especially a
>copper jacketed bullet.

Perhaps they were not actually sparks but white rocks streaking from
the impact. Asphalt contains many rocks some of which are white.

>Even were such a bullet to strike a hard gravel rock, made of flint,
>the possibility of creation of a spark is nil.
>Not to mention the even less likely capability of the lead core of a
>bullet to create a spark.
>
Why do you insist that it is a spark? White rock at a bullet impact
can appear to be sparks to an observer.

>Steel jacketed bullets could perhaps do so, however, they also hold
>their structure quite well as they are designed to penetrate armored
>vehicles.

No they were mandated by a Geneva convention about WWI to prevent
wounding and amputations.
>
>Any bullet which struck the asphalt would have, just as with the curb
>strike, left evidence which could have been easily found.
>Vehicle traffic would not obliterate the copper or lead residue which
>would remain, nor would the cratering of the asphalt just disappear.
>
True but did the DPD look for it on or about 11-22-63? Many things
were not investigated or documented. The bullet impact at the south
Elm manhole was well documented as was the curb impact that caused
Tague's wound.

>Nevertheless, there are those who continue to cling to this highly
>unlikely aspect, and continue to repeat it, in order to either convince
>themselves, or others of the wisdom of their solutions.
>
Clearly you do not know the facts of the case and the conflicts in the
evidence.

>Tom
>
>Tom
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Brokedad]

Perhaps, with your photo's of the grassy area around the manhole and
your statements, you may able to persuade some sixth grade class of the
validity of this statement that these items provide some form of proof
of a bullet impact.

Most adults have a little better grasp on reality.

Does any of this eliminate the possibility that either an entire bullet
or more concieveably another lead fragment struck in the grass near the
manhole?-----Obviously no.

Does it provide proof of such a claim?----Not even close.

Added Note: Why would the assassin from wherever this shot supposedly
came from be shooting in the direction of the "Sewer Man" assassin.
Did he not know that he could shoot his accomplice?
Or by some strange coincidence were there two or three separate
assassins in Dealy Plaza who did not even know that the other assassins
were there.
Is this a two or three assassin's assassination in which none of the
perpetrators knew that the others were there and they all just
coincidentally showed up in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Yes! Perhaps they were "white rocks". Then again, perhaps they were
indian arrowheads which were made of flint and therefore subject to
creating a spark if struck.
I base this little known fact on prior experience in which I actually
found such an item embedded into asphalt paving when I was a child.
So, why not go out on the extremity of this limb and assume that it was
a flint arrowhead in the asphalt.

Which of course, would still be irrelevant as neither copper nor lead
striking flint, create sparks.

Actually, I have no personal doubts that witnesses did see "SOMETHING"
fall to/land in/strike the pavement and street.
This is hardly evidence that it was a shot/bullet.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Had the Geneva convention mandated Steel Jacket bullets, then I would
suppose that we would still be utilizing them.
The convention basically outlawed the usage of soft lead bullets and
bullets which contained the capability for tearing apart in the human
upon impact. Therefore, the "jacketed" bullet.

Steel Jacketing was not specified as being the mandatory form of
jacketing.

And, the primary purpose of steel jacketed bullets is, and remains, the
pierceing of vehicles and armor.

The forming of the steel jacket around the bullet core is by far more
difficult; time consuming; and costly than is that of utilizing either
copper jacketing or cupro-nickel jacketing.
Mass production of steel jacketed bullets for utilization in normal
combat is therefore cost-prohibitive.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Considering that Time/Life originally was under the impression that a
missed shot had struck in the asphalt pavement and the fact that they
had the surveyor position this point on Elm St. and survey it in, then,
it would seem considerably likely that the FBI; SS; Dallas Police; and
anyone else present would have looked at this point.
And, since no one removed any pavement/asphalt from this area for
testing, one must surmise that there was ZERO evidence of a bullet
strike.

And, anyway, the US Secret Service knew where the impact locations for
all three shots fired was.
Which, did not include any Elm St. impacts.

Space aliens and ghosts are well documented. People have been seeing
them and writing about them for years.
Still have not seen one for myself, and these persons having been
convinced does not require that I be so naive as to accept this merely
because it is well "documented".

The Tague hit is a "physical fact", which is also well documented.

The "manhole cover"/surrounding grass is an unsupported claim.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Clearly, you assume as fact, speculative and unsupported claims.

And, there are actually very few "conflicts" in the case.

The great majority of conflicts are in the minds and imagination of
those who for whatever reason can not, or will not accept the absolute
evidence which exists, and therefore have to drift off into
"conspiracyland" in order to rationalize their failure to reconcile
the various contradictions which exist.
____________________________________________________________________________________

[Ricky Tobias]

On 9 Jun 2005 11:10:48 -0400, "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
wrote:

>Perhaps, with your photo's of the grassy area around the manhole and
>your statements, you may able to persuade some sixth grade class of the
>validity of this statement that these items provide some form of proof
>of a bullet impact.
>
>Most adults have a little better grasp on reality.
>
Most adults would not question the adults that reported the bullet
impact near the manhole.

>Does any of this eliminate the possibility that either an entire bullet
>or more concieveably another lead fragment struck in the grass near the
>manhole?-----Obviously no.
>
>Does it provide proof of such a claim?----Not even close.
>
Foster is a Dallas Police officer on the bridge who stated to the WC
he left the bridge and came to the manhole because he saw a bullet
impact. You have other police testifying about the impact and films
of the investigation at the manhole.

>Added Note: Why would the assassin from wherever this shot supposedly
>came from be shooting in the direction of the "Sewer Man" assassin.
>Did he not know that he could shoot his accomplice?

He is not shooting at sewer man where ever you think he is. The south
bridge is elevated above JFK.

>Or by some strange coincidence were there two or three separate
>assassins in Dealy Plaza who did not even know that the other assassins
>were there.

That is possible because the assassins did not have to know of the
other assassins.

>Is this a two or three assassin's assassination in which none of the
>perpetrators knew that the others were there and they all just
>coincidentally showed up in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.
>
Some one could have arranged for each of them to show up and told them
where to be. Some operations depend on need to know secrecy so that
one operative would not know the others. This way one cannot expose
the names of the others.

>Yes! Perhaps they were "white rocks". Then again, perhaps they were
>indian arrowheads which were made of flint and therefore subject to
>creating a spark if struck.
>I base this little known fact on prior experience in which I actually
>found such an item embedded into asphalt paving when I was a child.
>So, why not go out on the extremity of this limb and assume that it was
>a flint arrowhead in the asphalt.
>
>Which of course, would still be irrelevant as neither copper nor lead
>striking flint, create sparks.

Who says they have to be actual sparks? The movies add sparks to
bullet impacts all the time. Some people believe that bullets
actually do create sparks upon impact because the see this in movies.
Impact debris can appear to be sparks to some people.
>
>Actually, I have no personal doubts that witnesses did see "SOMETHING"
>fall to/land in/strike the pavement and street.
>This is hardly evidence that it was a shot/bullet.

They said it was a bullet which requires the police to investigate
them. Sheriff Decker was of the witnesses.
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Had the Geneva convention mandated Steel Jacket bullets, then I would
>suppose that we would still be utilizing them.

Unless they changed some thing.

>The convention basically outlawed the usage of soft lead bullets and
>bullets which contained the capability for tearing apart in the human
>upon impact. Therefore, the "jacketed" bullet.
>
True.

>Steel Jacketing was not specified as being the mandatory form of
>jacketing.
>
No but it was used.

>And, the primary purpose of steel jacketed bullets is, and remains, the
>pierceing of vehicles and armor.
>
>The forming of the steel jacket around the bullet core is by far more
>difficult; time consuming; and costly than is that of utilizing either
>copper jacketing or cupro-nickel jacketing.
>Mass production of steel jacketed bullets for utilization in normal
>combat is therefore cost-prohibitive.

Steel bullets are and were mass produced. Cost was not prohibitive.

>___________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Considering that Time/Life originally was under the impression that a
>missed shot had struck in the asphalt pavement and the fact that they
>had the surveyor position this point on Elm St. and survey it in, then,
>it would seem considerably likely that the FBI; SS; Dallas Police; and
>anyone else present would have looked at this point.
>And, since no one removed any pavement/asphalt from this area for
>testing, one must surmise that there was ZERO evidence of a bullet
>strike.
>
You would be wrong. The Dallas Police investigated and documented
this impact. Testimony is evidence.

>And, anyway, the US Secret Service knew where the impact locations for
>all three shots fired was.
>Which, did not include any Elm St. impacts.
>
Bull shit. The FBI was in charge and not the SS. The FBI first
reported all three shots in the car and then that changed when Tague's
wound and the curb impact had to be addressed. It was several months
before the FBI removed the curb and at first they could not find the
mark. Why is the FBI writing reports and being filmed at the Elm St.
manhole?

>Space aliens and ghosts are well documented. People have been seeing
>them and writing about them for years.
>Still have not seen one for myself, and these persons having been
>convinced does not require that I be so naive as to accept this merely
>because it is well "documented".
>
>The Tague hit is a "physical fact", which is also well documented.
>
>The "manhole cover"/surrounding grass is an unsupported claim.

No it is well documented and you have no evidence disproving it.
>_____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Clearly, you assume as fact, speculative and unsupported claims.
>
>And, there are actually very few "conflicts" in the case.
>
>The great majority of conflicts are in the minds and imagination of
>those who for whatever reason can not, or will not accept the absolute
>evidence which exists, and therefore have to drift off into
>"conspiracyland" in order to rationalize their failure to reconcile
>the various contradictions which exist.
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
You cannot see the evidence with LN blinders on. You are free to
disbelieve the solid evidence that does not fit your LN beliefs.


Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

Brokedad wrote:

> Perhaps, with your photo's of the grassy area around the manhole and
> your statements, you may able to persuade some sixth grade class of the
> validity of this statement that these items provide some form of proof
> of a bullet impact.
>
> Most adults have a little better grasp on reality.
>
> Does any of this eliminate the possibility that either an entire bullet
> or more concieveably another lead fragment struck in the grass near the
> manhole?-----Obviously no.
>
> Does it provide proof of such a claim?----Not even close.
>
> Added Note: Why would the assassin from wherever this shot supposedly
> came from be shooting in the direction of the "Sewer Man" assassin.

Not my theory, but I don't think they are talking about THAT sewer.

> Did he not know that he could shoot his accomplice?
> Or by some strange coincidence were there two or three separate
> assassins in Dealy Plaza who did not even know that the other assassins
> were there.

Hey, a couple of members of the HSCA actually did suggest the two lone
nut theory to explain the shot from the grassy knoll.

> Is this a two or three assassin's assassination in which none of the
> perpetrators knew that the others were there and they all just
> coincidentally showed up in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Yes! Perhaps they were "white rocks". Then again, perhaps they were
> indian arrowheads which were made of flint and therefore subject to
> creating a spark if struck.
> I base this little known fact on prior experience in which I actually
> found such an item embedded into asphalt paving when I was a child.
> So, why not go out on the extremity of this limb and assume that it was
> a flint arrowhead in the asphalt.
>

Hey, you are not trying hard enough. Why not make up a theory that one
of the assassins was shooting flint head arrows?

> Which of course, would still be irrelevant as neither copper nor lead
> striking flint, create sparks.
>
> Actually, I have no personal doubts that witnesses did see "SOMETHING"
> fall to/land in/strike the pavement and street.

Witnesses "see" a lot of things.

> This is hardly evidence that it was a shot/bullet.

Tague is evidence that something happened there.

> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Had the Geneva convention mandated Steel Jacket bullets, then I would
> suppose that we would still be utilizing them.
> The convention basically outlawed the usage of soft lead bullets and
> bullets which contained the capability for tearing apart in the human
> upon impact. Therefore, the "jacketed" bullet.
>
> Steel Jacketing was not specified as being the mandatory form of
> jacketing.
>
> And, the primary purpose of steel jacketed bullets is, and remains, the
> pierceing of vehicles and armor.
>
> The forming of the steel jacket around the bullet core is by far more
> difficult; time consuming; and costly than is that of utilizing either
> copper jacketing or cupro-nickel jacketing.
> Mass production of steel jacketed bullets for utilization in normal
> combat is therefore cost-prohibitive.

Sure, but I suppose that they could be considering in obsolete military
ammo. I have never seen a steel-jacketed bullet for the 6.5 mm M-C, but
of course they were used in other calibers.


> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Considering that Time/Life originally was under the impression that a
> missed shot had struck in the asphalt pavement and the fact that they
> had the surveyor position this point on Elm St. and survey it in, then,
> it would seem considerably likely that the FBI; SS; Dallas Police; and
> anyone else present would have looked at this point.
> And, since no one removed any pavement/asphalt from this area for
> testing, one must surmise that there was ZERO evidence of a bullet
> strike.
>
> And, anyway, the US Secret Service knew where the impact locations for
> all three shots fired was.
> Which, did not include any Elm St. impacts.
>
> Space aliens and ghosts are well documented. People have been seeing
> them and writing about them for years.
> Still have not seen one for myself, and these persons having been
> convinced does not require that I be so naive as to accept this merely
> because it is well "documented".
>

You did not actually travel to the moon yourself, but you accept as a
fact that someone did.

> The Tague hit is a "physical fact", which is also well documented.
>

The FBI tried to cover up that physical fact.

> The "manhole cover"/surrounding grass is an unsupported claim.
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Clearly, you assume as fact, speculative and unsupported claims.
>
> And, there are actually very few "conflicts" in the case.
>
> The great majority of conflicts are in the minds and imagination of
> those who for whatever reason can not, or will not accept the absolute
> evidence which exists, and therefore have to drift off into
> "conspiracyland" in order to rationalize their failure to reconcile
> the various contradictions which exist.
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>

[Brokedad]

Nope!

It's the one just down the street on the opposite side of the street
from Mr.Zapruder.

Long ago removed and replaced, which thereafter generated the first of
the sewer drain man assassin theories.

Since then, I believe that others have moved it (the sewer drain
scenario) to the same side of the street as Zapruder was on.

I really do not expend too much time in worrying with the sewer drain
scenarios.

And, yes, I have a copy of the full article which shows all those
persons around the sewer drain and manhole cover, looking for bullets
and bullet strike marks.
Given to me personally by Mr. Robert West, of West Survey, I might add.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Correct! I have not been to the moon.

I have met and spoken with a couple of the astronauts, and know Jim
Lovell personally.

He seemed as a person who would not make up the Apollo XIII story, so,
yes I believed that he circled the moon.

Tom

[Ricky Tobias]

On 10 Jun 2005 11:36:10 -0400, "Brokedad" <***@aol.com>
wrote:

>Nope!
>
>It's the one just down the street on the opposite side of the street
>from Mr.Zapruder.
>
That is the south manhole and no one has a shooter there. He is in
the north sewer or on the north or south bridge sewers.

>Long ago removed and replaced, which thereafter generated the first of
>the sewer drain man assassin theories.
>
>Since then, I believe that others have moved it (the sewer drain
>scenario) to the same side of the street as Zapruder was on.
>
>I really do not expend too much time in worrying with the sewer drain
>scenarios.

Good. The only one that could possibly work is the south bridge sewer
and it has problems
>
>And, yes, I have a copy of the full article which shows all those
>persons around the sewer drain and manhole cover, looking for bullets
>and bullet strike marks.
>Given to me personally by Mr. Robert West, of West Survey, I might add.

Jack Bizzel created or popularized the sewer theories about 1992. He
never used the south Elm manhole as a shooter location. It is on the
wrong side of the car to even see JFK. From the north sewer one
cannot see the limo when it is parked on the Z313 spot so the head
shot could not have came from the north sewer. The north bridge sewer
has two people standing over it with their arms over the fence and all
pickets are filmed in place (in the full unedited Nix film).
>_____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Correct! I have not been to the moon.
>
>I have met and spoken with a couple of the astronauts, and know Jim
>Lovell personally.
>
>He seemed as a person who would not make up the Apollo XIII story, so,
>yes I believed that he circled the moon.
>
>Tom
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Frank Gerber]

>
> Jack Bizzel created or popularized the sewer theories about 1992. He
> never used the south Elm manhole as a shooter location. It is on the
> wrong side of the car to even see JFK. From the north sewer one
> cannot see the limo when it is parked on the Z313 spot so the head
> shot could not have came from the north sewer. The north bridge sewer
> has two people standing over it with their arms over the fence and all
> pickets are filmed in place (in the full unedited Nix film).

Can I have a picture of this two people?

Frank

[Ricky Tobias]

On 11 Jun 2005 21:52:35 -0400, "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com>
wrote:

>>
>> Jack Bizzel created or popularized the sewer theories about 1992. He
>> never used the south Elm manhole as a shooter location. It is on the
>> wrong side of the car to even see JFK. From the north sewer one
>> cannot see the limo when it is parked on the Z313 spot so the head
>> shot could not have came from the north sewer. The north bridge sewer
>> has two people standing over it with their arms over the fence and all
>> pickets are filmed in place (in the full unedited Nix film).
>
>Can I have a picture of this two people?
>
I probably do not have pictures. Nix was interviewed in several films
and some one played him in the Stone movie. Jack is about 6'
white-balding black hair and is seen in several books/JFK newspapers
near the sewer. It will take me a while to find them.

If you want the two people looking over the fence contact the Sixth
Floor Museum and ask for a full copy of the Nix Film or just these
people. Gary Mack can probably do a video capture and print a few
frames for you. Groden's films edit this out so it probably is not on
the market.
>Frank
>
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Anthony Marsh]

Brokedad wrote:

> Nope!
>
> It's the one just down the street on the opposite side of the street
> from Mr.Zapruder.
>

You need a good map. I have never heard of a sewer man theory involving
the sewer on the SOUTH side of Elm Street. ONLY on the NORTH side near
the pergola.

> Long ago removed and replaced, which thereafter generated the first of
> the sewer drain man assassin theories.
>
> Since then, I believe that others have moved it (the sewer drain
> scenario) to the same side of the street as Zapruder was on.
>

Duh, the allegation is about a shot to the right side of the head.

> I really do not expend too much time in worrying with the sewer drain
> scenarios.
>

Obviously.

> And, yes, I have a copy of the full article which shows all those
> persons around the sewer drain and manhole cover, looking for bullets
> and bullet strike marks.
> Given to me personally by Mr. Robert West, of West Survey, I might add.
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Correct! I have not been to the moon.
>
> I have met and spoken with a couple of the astronauts, and know Jim
> Lovell personally.
>
> He seemed as a person who would not make up the Apollo XIII story, so,
> yes I believed that he circled the moon.
>

So your definition of fact rests on whether you like the person making
the claim?
Did you also think that Newton was a nice guy so therefore gravity exists?

> Tom
>
>

[Frank Gerber]

> And, yes, I have a copy of the full article which shows all those
> persons around the sewer drain and manhole cover, looking for bullets
> and bullet strike marks.
> Given to me personally by Mr. Robert West, of West Survey, I might add.

Could I have a copy of this article? That would be terribly nice.

Frank

[Brokedad]

If I could/can locate it, I will scan it and email it.

However, not unlike much of the information which I obtained from Mr.
West back around 1990 or so, this, along with much of his survey
information, was packed away after the movie JFK destroyed most hopes
of rationally explaining the JFK assassination facts.

Tom

[Gerry Simone (W)]

Ricky..can you get a more complete picture...what does the newspaper
caption fully say?

Is this the bullet near the manhole?

Does the pic show a bullet on the grass?

"Ricky Tobias" <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

[Frank Gerber]

Sorry, but I canŽt identify a bullet in this picture.

Where and when was the photo taken? And by whom?

Where is this grass located?

Frank

[Brokedad]

Not likely that you would have seen a small 6.5mm bullet travelling at
approximately 2,000 feet per second, strike the grass either.

Even if one were standing directly beside the impact location.

Any such projectile which struck either the cast iron cover of the
manhole, or the concrete surrounding the manhole cover, not unlike the
Tague/curb strike, would have left the evidence of it's strike.

This is frequently referred to as one of those items which is a virtual
waste of time for anyone who seriously expects to find answers.

Tom

[Anthony Marsh]

Brokedad wrote:

> Not likely that you would have seen a small 6.5mm bullet travelling at
> approximately 2,000 feet per second, strike the grass either.
>
> Even if one were standing directly beside the impact location.
>
> Any such projectile which struck either the cast iron cover of the
> manhole, or the concrete surrounding the manhole cover, not unlike the
> Tague/curb strike, would have left the evidence of it's strike.
>

Then how would you document it? Take a photograph of it? We have several
photographs of suspicious marks. So what? Tell the FBI and have them
find the mark? Tried that already and they claimed they couldn't find
the mark.

> This is frequently referred to as one of those items which is a virtual
> waste of time for anyone who seriously expects to find answers.
>
> Tom
>
>

[Brokedad]

Interesting enough, neither could anyone else find anything which could
be considered as factually representing a bullet strike on either the
cast iron manhole cover; the cast iron ring which holds the manhole
cover into place and is poured in with the concrete; or the actual
concrete itself.

The marks are only "suspicious" to those persons who for whatever
reason attempt to place some great emphasis on a claim which is totally
unsupported by any factual evidence.

Tom

P.S. The newspaper article photo clearly shows members of the Dallas
Police force as well as various newspaper personnel gathered all around
the manhole looking for this evidence which, by the way, the FBI could
find no indication of either.

[Anthony Marsh]

Brokedad wrote:

> Interesting enough, neither could anyone else find anything which could
> be considered as factually representing a bullet strike on either the
> cast iron manhole cover; the cast iron ring which holds the manhole
> cover into place and is poured in with the concrete; or the actual
> concrete itself.
>
> The marks are only "suspicious" to those persons who for whatever
> reason attempt to place some great emphasis on a claim which is totally
> unsupported by any factual evidence.
>
> Tom
>
> P.S. The newspaper article photo clearly shows members of the Dallas
> Police force as well as various newspaper personnel gathered all around
> the manhole looking for this evidence which, by the way, the FBI could
> find no indication of either.
>
>


Which does not mean much, considering that the FBI could not initially
find the mark on the curb near Tague.

[Frank Gerber]

And again - nice arrows!

How can you substantiate that the spot is a bullet strike.

Who was the policeman at the manhole? Is there a report from him with
reference to the probable bullet strike?

Frank


"tomnln" <***@cox.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8WYqe.10992$***@lakeread06...
> Here is the Picture.....
>
>
>
> "Brokedad" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Interesting enough, neither could anyone else find anything which could
>> be considered as factually representing a bullet strike on either the
>> cast iron manhole cover; the cast iron ring which holds the manhole
>> cover into place and is poured in with the concrete; or the actual
>> concrete itself.
>>
>> The marks are only "suspicious" to those persons who for whatever
>> reason attempt to place some great emphasis on a claim which is totally
>> unsupported by any factual evidence.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> P.S. The newspaper article photo clearly shows members of the Dallas
>> Police force as well as various newspaper personnel gathered all around
>> the manhole looking for this evidence which, by the way, the FBI could
>> find no indication of either.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Frank Gerber]

How may bullets, what kind of bullets, where did they impact, where were the
shooters?

Frank

"Questioning" <***@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> There were so many bullets flying the WC had to say one shot missed. The
> depository crime scene search evidence is the four cartridges, which was
> entirely filmed by Tom Alyea. Counting the whole cartridge, there was
> three empties.
> The necessity of the SBT is that of the magical properties of the second
> shot. The WCR does not explain which missed shot to determine the
> sequence. A third shot; two hitting Kennedy and one hitting Connally would
> make more of an intelligent argument. But how could the WCR determine the
> missed shot scenario so badly needed?
>
> "Frank Gerber" <***@frankgerber.com> wrote in message
> news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Hi!
>>
>> By reading different articles, reports and books one question came to my
>> mind:
>>
>> Where the hell (sorry!) was the impact of the third shot (first, second
>> or
>> third doesnŽt matter here)?
>>
>> If I understood what IŽve read, we have one impact in JFKŽs back or neck,
>> the bullet went on through JBC and remained in his thigh.
>>
>> The second went through JFKs head and splitted up in two bigger and
>> multiple smaller parts. One of the bigger parts hit the inside of the
>> windshield, the other heavy part caused the dent in the chrome topping
>> above the windshield.
>>
>> Somewhere I read of witnesses who saw a bullet hitting the street behind
>> the presidental limousine. Where is a photo of this impact? If there is
>> no
>> picture of this piece of evidence, why is there no such picture? If there
>> is no picture, would it be consistent to assume that there was no impact
>> in the paving?
>>
>> We have a picture presumably of a bullet impact at the curbstone far down
>> Elmstreet. If this is the impact of the third shot, how can this line of
>> fire (from the 6th floor window) be consistent with a shot around frame
>> 160? WouldnŽt it not be more consistent to conclude that the first two
>> shots were hits and the third shot was the miss (after the head shot)?
>>
>> IŽm just reading the book "From Love Field" by Nellie Connaly. She states
>> that the first shot hit Jfk, a SECOND ONE hit her husband and the third
>> one was the shot at frame 313. This would make three shots and three
>> hits.
>> I think I saw a two different interviews with JBC where he makes a
>> statement which corresponds to the statements of his wife - that he
>> wasnŽt
>> hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
>>
>> O. k. : Where do you think is the impact of the third bullet?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Brokedad]

Frank;

CE 2011-Continued

Memorandum: From SA Sorrells (Dallas) to Inspector Kelley
Date: February 13, 1964

This concrete slab and manhole cover is located on the south side of
Elm Street almost opposite to where the President's car was located
when the last shot that killed President Kenned was fired.

Someone reported that a bullet had ricochated off the concrete slab in
the corner next to the word "sewer" stamped on the manhole cover.
________________________________________________________________________

This is another of those claims which was investigated and found to
contain no evidence of any shot striking the steet/manholes/manhole
covers.

Although SA Sorrells has the "last shot" considerably farther down Elm
St. then it apparantly was, this nevertheless serves to indicate that a
considerable number of persons were aware that the Z-312/313 headshot
was not the LAST shot fired in the assassination.

Tom

P.S. So much for the manhole bullet strike theory!

[Brokedad]

Harry D. Holmes:
____________________________________________________________________________________

When the motorcade came by, I was watching with a pair of 7X50
binoculars when all of a sudden there was a CRACK.....CRACK....CRACK!!
All of us thought that somebody was throwing firecrackers. We just
never dreamed that anybody would be shooting at him.

Anyway, about the first or second crack, I wouldn't know which, there
was just a cone of blood and corrruption that went up right in the back
of his head and neck. I thought it was red paper on a firecracker. It
looked like a firecracker lit up which looks like little bits of red
paper as it goes up.
But in reality it was his skull and brains and everything else that
went up perhaps as much as six or eight feet just like that!

Then just a minute later another crack, and everybody fell down like
they were ducking firecrackers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________