| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349/z312.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349/z313.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_f-3%28n15%29.jpg) |
Larry Sturdivan, a ballistic expert, in his book “The JFK Myths”, believed the Occipital Protuberance area made more sense.
What people forget is that we don’t have three points to line up:
1. TSBD sniper’s nest.
2. JFK’s entrance wound on the head.
3. JFK’s exit wound on the head.
There is a fourth point:
4. The frame of the windshield, roughly, because of a bullet fragment hit up high on the windshield, a second fragment hit even higher on the windshield frame itself, and a third, evidently, higher still that cleared both the windshield and its frame, likely striking James Tague.
These four points do not line up. The explanation is simple. Real world Ballistic observe bullet fragments following curved paths through ballistic gel, not straight lines. And they general follow a simple curve, not curing downward at one instant and then upward. They tend to follow a consistent curve. Once they start travelling through the air, they follow a much straighter line. Although they will curve some over a distance of 100 yards.
The near ‘Occipital Protuberance’ or EOP entrance makes sense. It strikes the back on the skull and starts to fragment. It curves in a random direction, which happens to be upwards. But the time it exits the skull, there are at least 3 major fragments, following slightly divergent paths. Which results in the windshield strikes and clearance.
The cowlick entrance does not make as much sense. The bullet would have to curve downward, then abruptly change direction and curve upward to exit the skull to result in the windshield strikes. And this would be true if fired from the TSBD sniper’s nest, or any other position not above the nearby building’s roofline.
I forget to point out that not only do the following four points do not line up:
1. TSBD sniper’s nest.
2. JFK’s entrance wound on the head.
3. JFK’s exit wound on the head.
4. The frame of the windshield, roughly, because of a bullet fragment hit up high on the windshield, a second fragment hit even higher on the windshield frame itself, and a third, evidently, higher still that cleared both the windshield and its frame, likely striking James Tague.
but the first three points do not line up as well. This is to be expected since the fragmenting bullet would follow a curve line path through the brain. So, it is no good to get an estimate of location of the entrance wound by choosing a point that is on the line from the TSBD sniper’s nest to the exit wound.
The HSCA said the entrance wound to JFKs head was in the cowlick area (which is the area where the hair parts at the back top of your head). However, Humes, Boswell and Finck told them they were misreading the autopsy x-rays and photos and the entrance wound was actually 4 inches lower in an area slightly to the right and above the Occipital Protuberance (which is the bony area at the base of your skull on the back).
In the attached drawing, i've drawn the angle at 17.5 degrees (which is what Dale Myers said the angle coming down was, i dont know what the HSCA said it was). On the drawing, the exit wound we see on frame Z313 seems to match more closely with what Humes, Boswell and Finck were saying about the entrance wound being low in the base of the skull.
Finck said the actual entry wound (as per the autopsy photo of the back of JFKs head) was near a white colored blob near the hairline as opposed to the darkened oval shape visible in the cowlick area. (see Reclaiming History pages 395 to 396 for where Humes, Boswell and Finck contradict the HSCA about the location of the entry wound on the head)
(https://i.ibb.co/56b7YZH/Head-Shot-Trajectory.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/0YPDDz3/Finks-Entry-Wound.png)
It was the Clark Panel that moved the entrance from the EOP to the cowlick. All the subsequent government investigations have
agreed with the cowlick entrance.
The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands with the scalp refracted and the brain removed. They requested photographs be made of
the outside and the inside of the wound. After they reexamined the autopsy materials in 1967 Dr. Finck wrote an after action report noting
those photographs were not in the archive. All three doctors stood by their EOP entrance wound conclusion to the grave.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/dhor-insapp-01_0001_0153.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
The Clark Panel based their cowlick entrance on the x-ray below that shows a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull.
Seems the autopsy doctors found one wound and the Clark Panel found another higher up on JFK's skull.
The doctors inexperience doing gunshot wound autopsies may account for the error. After all they missed the wound in front the throat.
The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)
[/quote
Two in the head. One in the back.
It was the Clark Panel that moved the entrance from the EOP to the cowlick.
All the subsequent government investigations have
agreed with the cowlick entrance.
The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands with the scalp refracted and the brain removed.
They requested photographs be made of
the outside and the inside of the wound. After they reexamined the autopsy materials in 1967 Dr. Finck wrote an after action report noting
those photographs were not in the archive.
All three doctors stood by their EOP entrance wound conclusion to the grave.
The Clark Panel based their cowlick entrance on the x-ray below that shows a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull.
Seems the autopsy doctors found one wound and the Clark Panel found another higher up on JFK's skull.
The doctors inexperience doing gunshot wound autopsies may account for the error. After all they missed the wound in front the throat.
The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.
The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.
Nope,
The chip of concrete that wounded James Tague most likely was sent flying by the jacket-less bullet that struck the curb near him as a result of Oswald's missed shot -- the shot he fired about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, which bullet lost its copper jacket when it glanced the traffic light's cross arm, thereby explaining how the metallic smear left behind on the curb had no trace of copper in it.
-- MWT ;)
"Logical conclusion"? LOL
Let’s apply your logical to the bullet that wounded JFK in the back:
The autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1. However, the hole in JFK’s coat indicates an entrance wound that was a couple of inches lower.
Logical conclusion, that JFK was hit in the back by two different bullets. One which did not put a hole in the jacket but did cause an entrance wound. And a second bullet that caused an entrance wound, but did not put a hole in the jacket.
No, the logical conclusion is that one bullet put a hole in the jacket and caused the entrance wound in the back. The misalignment must have been caused by the coat riding up, which can be seen in some photographs taken just before JFK was wounded.
In other words, the discrepancy is caused by someone making an error in estimating the location of the bullet wound.
If it was caused by a bullet, how was it, by sheer coincidence, that a bullet just happened to hit directly on the corner of the curb. The odds are roughly 25 to 1, that the bullet fragment would strike right on the corner, and not an inch or two beyond it or below it.
This is a logical fallacy. Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere. This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.
This is a logical fallacy. Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere. This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.
If someone says:
“I will pay you 1 dollar and you can cut the deck and I will flip over the top card. If the top card is a 4 of spades, you must pay me 5 dollars. If it is any other card, you pay me nothing.”
Now, if I am foolish enough to take this bet, I cut the deck, and he appears to turn over the top card and it is the 4 of spades, it probably didn’t happen by luck. Maybe it was luck, but probably not. The four of spades was probably “guided” there.
True, but that's not the correct analogy.
You're picking a random card that happens to be the 4 of spades and then claiming that the odds against picking that particular card are high. But that would be true for any card you happened to pick.
Similarly, you're picking a spot on the curb where something happened to hit and claiming that the odds against that particular spot are high. But that would apply to any other particular spot.
Lead smears on a curb caused by a tire will be on the side of the curb 33% of time, and right on the corner 67% of the time, assuming the curb is one fourth as tall as the tire is wide, and the tire scrapes along for a short distance of about 10 feet or so.
Just some thoughts. I have no way of knowing if the mark was related to the shooting, but it seemed at the time a number of people thought so. When I looked at the Tague mark scenario awhile back a few things I noticed or questions I had were:
- The national archives took the picture incorrectly; it is upside down/reversed as they present it. The rough edge on top of the block should be down, and the blob on the left side should be on the right.
- They had some pretty heavy equipment to remove the curb section. I wondered if that couldn’t have been a source of some marks.
I don’t recall seeing the scratches in the Dillard photo before the curb was disturbed, but the photo is not crystal clear.
- I had some reservations about the curb analysis since I never saw the report. I personally think there could have been a small amount of copper residue that was eroded away after the curb saw ~8 months of weathering and acidic rain.
I seem to recall the report also said a trace amount of antimony being in the lead. This suggests unhardened lead was the source as I think hardened lead has up to a couple of percent of antimony.
Again, I’m not too sure about the analysis without seeing the method or analytical results. A curb control analysis nearby would have been useful, as I mentioned before there was a lot of lead residue in exhaust from tetaethyl lead in those days.
My conclusion was IF the mark was related to the shooting, it was most likely related to the large missing bullet fragment (that had unhardened lead and probably a little jacket material) that was never found from the head shot.
You're making a whole lot of assumptions in order to calculate your "probabilities". Hence they are contrived.
Here's the thing. We know that shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, something hit Tague, and that Tague saw a fresh mark on the curb. We don't know that anybody's tire rim rubbed up against the curb on that spot.
Arguing that the lead smear was likely made by a car is an unwarranted assumption. But assuming the lead smear was left by a bullet is not?What I'm objecting to is they way in which you arrived at "likely", which was basically via the use of the Lottery paradox:
No, here’s the thing. We know that there were a limited number of bullets fired. We know that thousands of cars went pass this curb day after day.
We know that there are other marks on the curb. Which you haven’t even attempted to explain yet.
• The curve lines are what one would expect to see in there were formed by a rim of a tire.
What I'm objecting to is they way in which you arrived at "likely", which was basically via the use of the Lottery paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox)
Any specific position on the curb that you pick for a possible bullet strike is equally likely or unlikely, just as any combination of lottery numbers in a fair lottery is equally likely to win, even 1-2-3-4-5-6.
But we actually do know that bullets were fired and that Tague saw something hit that spot.
We don't actually know that any of these "thousands of cars" rubbed the portion of its tire rim with a lead balancing weight on that particular spot.
That's an appeal to ignorance: "You can't explain what caused these marks, therefore they were caused by car tires."
That sounds like confirmation bias.
I disagree with you and I think most people on this.
There was no chip of concrete that was sent flying from the curb. There was only a lead smear on the corner of the curb. That is something many people have agree on.
Click on the picture below to see the curb with the lead smear:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/smear.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/smear.htm)
And the lead smear was not caused by a bullet, in all probability. This is where I disagree with most people.
If it was caused by a bullet, how was it, by sheer coincidence, that a bullet just happened to hit directly on the corner of the curb. The odds are roughly 25 to 1, that the bullet fragment would strike right on the corner, and not an inch or two beyond it or below it. Or at least miss by a quarter of an inch. Such a coincidence should not be accepted if there is some other way the lead smear could have gotten on the location without a coincidence. If there was some way a lead object could have been guided precisely there. And there is such a way.
Thousands of cars pass this curb each day. If one of them drifted out of its lane, the tire would bump against the curb. The rim of the curb could guide a lead balancing weight precisely to the corner of the curb.
Indeed, in the picture of the curb which is now stored at the National Archives:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Tague_curb.gif)
One can even see curved lines marking the curb. One of these curved lines point right at the lead smear.
Another coincidence? Or was this curved line made by the rim of a car’s tire, and the rim guided the lead balancing weight right to the corner where some of the lead was rubbed off.
Question for anyone:
How did the bullet fragment cause a curved mark on the curb that points right at the lead smear it made?
Or was this curve mark unrelated to the bullet and it just happens to point at the lead smear by coincidence. And the lead smear itself just happens to be on the corner of the curb, again, by coincidence.
All results are equally likely in a lottery. But not in a bullet strike on a curb.
With a bullet or a bullet fragment travelling at a shallow angle, under 45 degrees relative to the horizon, a strike on the vertical face of the curb is the most likely result. The second most probable result is a strike to the top of the curb. The least likely result is a strike right on the corner of the curb.
Tague did not see something hit that spot.
He felt the sting of the fragment on his cheek and someone else noticed blood. Only then did a search for a bullet strike occur. Whatever they found, they were incline to interpret the find as a bullet strike, if at all plausible. People often spot what they expect to find.
Joe, et al.,
How do you know that Tague's wound wasn't caused by a bullet that had lost its copper jacket when it glanced the mast arm of the traffic light, and then ricocheted off the concrete near the manhole cover, and finally hit the curb and fragmented, wounding Tague with one of the fragments?
It's a plausible scenario in that: 1) one of the four (iirc) Carcano bullets Max Holland's crew fired at a mast-like metal pipe did lose its copper jacket in a glancing blow, 2) the fact that the three spent shells in in the Sniper's Lair were found to be in a pattern that suggested that one of those three bullets had been fired at a much sharper down-angle, i.e., when the limo was almost directly below the window (i.e., when the mast arm would have been directly in the assassin's firing line), 3) the line segments representing that bullet's flight from the window to the mast arm to the man hole cover to the curb was plausibly straight or "direct," and 4) both Amos Euins and Patricia Ann Donaldson (nee Lawrence) told Max Holland in so many words that when they heard the first shot, the limo had just passed a particular highway sign pole on the "island," which correlates well with point #2, above.
-- MWT ;)
This is not true, and it’s your fatal flaw. It’s a random event. No specific spot is any more likely than any other specific spot.
My mistake. Tague said that the patrolman who talked to him “saw something fly off back on the street". And then they saw a fresh mark there on the curb.
Isn’t that what you are doing — interpreting the marks you see on the curb as it now exists as tire rim marks?
Mr. TAGUE. Right. Going on Elm. So I stood there looking around. I looked up---there was a motorcycle policeman, and he stopped and had drawn his gun and was running up the embankment toward the railroad tracks. A crowd of people; several people, were starting to come down into that area where he was running, and the people pointing, and excitement up there and so on, and about that time a patrolman who evidently had been stationed under the triple underpass walked up and said, "What happened?" and I said, "I don't know; something."
And we walked up to the---by this time the motorcycle policeman returned back close to where his motorcycle was, and we walked up there and there was a man standing there. Seeing that he was very excited--I don't remember his name at the time I did have it on the tip of my tongue very excited saying he was watching the President and it seemed like his head just exploded. This was a couple or 3 minutes after this happened. And the patrolman said, "Well, I saw something fly off back on the street."
We walked back down there, and another man joined us who identified himself as the deputy sheriff, who was in civilian clothes, and I guess this was 3 or 4 minutes after. I don't know how to gage time on something like that.
You are referring to James Tague’s Warren Commission testimony:
First of all, this is second hand information. We don’t have testimony from the police officer saying this but just Mr. Tague’s recollection that this was said.
What makes you think the policeman’s statement is about something flying back from the curb and not something flying back off of JFK’s head?
I don’t know. But I find it unlikely that Oswald fired a bullet that early because:
• The angular speed of the target would be very high. Even with a limited speed just coming off the sharp turn, the limousine would be moving at almost right angles as seen from Oswald’s position. The angular speed would be, at 5 mph about 5.25 degrees per second and at even 3 mph, 3.15 degrees per second.
• I think the boxes would be in the way of that shot. 60 feet up, the target about, what, 30 horizontal feet away. That would be shooting down at an angle of 63 degrees. I think the boxes would be in the way. Even with the boxes out of the way, I think it would require the upper portion of his body to be hanging out of the window. And he would be not nearly so will hidden if he just stays back a bit and waits a few more seconds.
"Moved it"? What... did they alter the visual record? Because the visual record supports what the Clark Panel concluded.
Reflecting the scalp to expose the EOP region requires a lot of effort, such as severing of attachments. None of that is mentioned in the autopsy report or their testimonies.
Finck thought there was (or there should have been in retrospect) a photo of the bared entry wound. But they only photographed the entry wound with ther scalp over it. They wanted to preserve the President's body as much as possible.
(https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/c0130769/800wm/C0130769-Suboccipital_muscles,_artwork.jpg)
They stood by Humes' word that he felt some bump under the scalp he--it is my belief--mistook for the EOP. None of them saw the bared scalp wound relative to the bared EOP. In fact Humes measured the scalp wound from the skull's midline, a line not generally visible on the exterior of the occipital bone. The parietal bone, however, exhibits a prominent suture line along the skull's midline.
The skull had numerous fractures radiating from the skull in-shoot. Could have been a fracture edge that Humes mistook for the EOP "bump".
I believe they based it more so on what the lateral X-ray of the skull showed.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)
"The position of this wound corresponds to the hole
in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2.
"On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole
measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the
outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm.
on the internal surface can be seen in profile
approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the
hole is depressed."
Geeze. Even a non-doctor sitting at home in isolation during a pandemic, distracted by the protest coverage on TV, can easily find support for the WCR-LN head shot.
"Logical conclusion"? LOL
Blah, blah, blah and more blah.
Bottom line, the original autopsy doctors, you know the ones who held JFK's skull in their hands, found a through and through bullet hole
slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP. Low in the back of the skull.
The Clark Panel found a trail of metal particles across the top of JFK's skull. Indicating a bullet wound there. High on the skull at the
cowlick.
Evidence of at least 2 bullets striking JFK in the head.
Thank you. Two shots to the head.
Okay, but only if you say so.The evidence "says so".
-- MWT ;)
The evidence "says so".
Including Mr West's survey.
As you "interpret" it, I'm sure.Have you seen the survey?
-- MWT ;)
In Max Holland's mocked-up, laser-measured reenactment of the shooting of that first shot at about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, ... the boxes were not in the way.Max Holland. Government apologist.
If you were the assassin up there at that window and ... 1) not wanting to shoot while the limo was still on Houston Street for fear of being spotted and shot while in the act of shooting, ... and ... 2) you knew there was a big oak tree partially obscuring Elm Street from your view, ... I think you'd be tempted to squeeze of a shot before the limo disappeared behind the tree, knowing that you'd probably be able to get off one or two more shots if, by some miracle, you missed on that "easy", five-miles-per-hour, reach-out-and-touch-somebody one.
-- MWT ;)
Max Holland. Government apologist.
CIA apologist.
The first shot hit the tree.
John Tonkovich,
Xxxxxxx troll, or just really, really gullible?
Do try to get it straight, won't you? The first shot glanced not a tree branch, but the traffic light "mast arm" about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133.
-- MWT ;)
| (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/001_TrajcRecon_Newsweek2014.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Holland's graphic. |
| (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/004_LCH-3.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Haag experiment showing minimal deflection from glancing shot trajectory. | (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/008_MGH-2.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Myers 3D projection showing amount of deflection needed to make Holland's theory work. |
Holland explains the lack of a dent on the mask arm was because the bullet struck at a shallow-angle strike. However, this would mean minimal deflection. But Holland wants a major deflection from the mask arm to make the bullet (or fragments from it) go down Elm Street towards the manhole cover and bridge.
(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/001_TrajcRecon_Newsweek2014.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Holland's graphic.
(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/004_LCH-3.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Haag experiment showing minimal deflection from glancing shot trajectory.(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/008_MGH-2.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Myers 3D projection showing amount of deflection
needed to make Holland's theory work.
Dear Jerry,Holland and Myers. Hacks.
Holland believes the bullet glanced the mast arm sufficiently hard to cause it to lose its copper jacket, thereby explaining why the bullet smear found on the curb by Tague had no copper in it.
Holland also says that a possible reason the hypothesized glancing "dent" on the mast arm couldn't be found some fifty years later was because the mast arm had been repainted five times (iirc) since the assassination, and those coats of sloppily-applied paint had filled in the dent sufficiently as to make it undetectable.
-- MWT ;)
Holland and Myers. Hacks.
The authentic autopsy photos show only a bullet sized entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.
JohnM
The authentic autopsy photos show only a bullet sized entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.
It also shows a completely intact back of the head, when we know that a part of Kennedy's skull was blown away by the explosion.
I love how you're following me all over the Forum, you might learn something, but as regards to this latest observation you're not a doctor and your opinion is duly noted.
JohnM
Jacky Kennedy wasn't a doctor either, yet she picked up a piece of the skull from the hood of the car....
Where did Jackie say she picked up a piece of skull from the trunk of the Limo?
JohnM
I love how you're following me all over the Forum
Said the guy with an overinflated ego and a massive unjustified sense of self-importance
Do some research yourself....
You're the one following(stalking) and responding to everything I say on multiple threads but you actually seem to be learning something, congrats, I love a happy ending.
JohnM
I didn't "learn" you have an overinflated ego and a massive unjustified sense of self-importance. I already knew that.
Do you think if you keep repeating yourself often enough that it might change reality?
JohnM
Do you even know what reality is? Wait, forget I asked.... I already know the answer
Irelevant.
JohnM
I said I was going to ignore irrelevant off topic responses.
JohnM
Hilarious....
Say what?
Is Mytton aware of the various physical surveys of Dealey Plaza?
Is Mytton aware of the various physical surveys of Dealey Plaza?
Dear Jerry,
Holland believes the bullet glanced the mast arm sufficiently hard to cause it to lose its copper jacket, thereby explaining why the bullet smear found on the curb by Tague had no copper in it.
Holland also says that a possible reason the hypothesized glancing "dent" on the mast arm couldn't be found some fifty years later was because the mast arm had been repainted five times (iirc) since the assassination, and those coats of sloppily-applied paint had filled in the dent sufficiently as to make it undetectable.
-- MWT ;)
| (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/004_LCH-3.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) A shot causing minimal damage to mast arm would not deflect much. | (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/008_MGH-2.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Amount of deflection needed to make Holland's theory work. |
The Nix and Zapruder films show matter moving forward and away from Oswald's sniper's nest.
I said I was going to ignore irrelevant off topic responses.