JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Micah Mileto on May 04, 2018, 06:28:05 AM
-
The face sheet, the autopsy report, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, Francis X. O'Neill, Tom Robinson, George Burkley. All of these sources have indicated a small bullet hole resembling entrance right next to Kennedy's external occipital protuberance, not 4-5 inches above it.
The case that the x-rays show an entry 4-5 inches above the EOP is very shoddy and over-exaggerated. Half the people who saw the x-rays said they couldn't find any apparent entry on it. The photographs are ambiguous as to whether they show the EOP wound, but they can be compatible with it as the lower head area is in shadows and autopsy photographs have mysteriously gone missing, including apparently close-up shots of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull. The red spot higher in the scalp was said by Dr. Boswell to be an insignificant laceration related to the large defect. Everybody from the autopsy disagreed that it was the wound described in the autopsy report. The red spot is also about 12 mm, not 15x6mm.
-
The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands and stood by their position of a EOP entrance wound until their deaths.
The Clark Panel decided:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm
HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK?S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham
~snip~
"....Based on evaluations of presumably the same pictures and X-rays, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA later concluded that ?the wound? ? the entrance site of the fatal bullet in JFK?s head ? was not just ?slightly higher? in the images, but 4 inches higher. This is scarcely a negligible discrepancy, given that the area of the back of the head in which it was concluded there had been a 4 inch error only measures, top-to-bottom about 5 &1/2 inches. Nowhere in either of the 1966 or 1967 reviews did JFK?s pathologists acknowledge there was a huge disparity between the wounds in their autopsy report and those in ?their? pictures and X-rays. Moreover, on the question of the fragments in the X-ray, the pathologists failed to mention that the antero-posterior trail of fragments in the lateral X-ray are in an entirely different location than specified in their autopsy report....."
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)
"Lateral X-Ray taken during the autopsy of President Kennedy, showing a trail of apparent metal fragments high in the skull. The Clark Panel's declaration that the line described by these fragments "passes through the above-mentioned hole" [i.e, the bullet entrance] is not accurate. The "above-mentioned hole" can be seen as a step-off, or a crack, in the skull at the left side of the skull. Anyone can see that, as the House Select Committee was later to report, the "trail" of fragments is considerably higher than the step-off, ion fact, 4-cm higher, according to the Select Committee."
~snip~
"Worse yet, the Panel incorrectly described the trail?s true position as, ?on lateral film #2 this (fragment) formation(?s) long axis, if extended posteriorly, passes through the above-mentioned (new entrance) hole.?[184] That fragment trail does not line up with the presumed higher entrance hole. As one of the authors (Aguilar) determined by looking at the original X-rays, the trail lies noticeably higher than that level. This is not a new discovery. In 1978, HSCA expert radiologist David O. Davis, MD reported that the trail extended, ?anteriorly from the inner table of the skull at a point approximately 6-cm. antero-superiorly from the previously described embedded metallic fragment.?
~snip~
Two separate investigations, two separate wounds to JFK's skull.
-
The face sheet, the autopsy report, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, Francis X. O'Neill, Tom Robinson, George Burkley. All of these sources have indicated a small bullet hole resembling entrance right next to Kennedy's external occipital protuberance, not 4-5 inches above it.
The case that the x-rays show an entry 4-5 inches above the EOP is very shoddy and over-exaggerated. Half the people who saw the x-rays said they couldn't find any apparent entry on it. The photographs are ambiguous as to whether they show the EOP wound, but they can be compatible with it as the lower head area is in shadows and autopsy photographs have mysteriously gone missing, including apparently close-up shots of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull. The red spot higher in the scalp was said by Dr. Boswell to be an insignificant laceration related to the large defect. Everybody from the autopsy disagreed that it was the wound described in the autopsy report. The red spot is also about 12 mm, not 15x6mm.
Micah, I accept what is in the autopsy report. The wound was slightly above the EOP.
-
Micah, I accept what is in the autopsy report. The wound was slightly above the EOP.
Okay, well usually normal human beings don't say "slightly above the EOP" when they mean "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". So do you think the hole was right next to the EOP?
It could not have been very high above the EOP. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy late, after the top of the skull had been separated in order to remove the brain, and yet he always said that he could still examine the EOP wound as a perforation in the occipital bone, undisturbed by large skull cavity above it. How then could there be an entry wound on the top of the head while keeping with Finck's statements? I believe that it would be considered improper in any brain removal procedure such as this is not remove occipital bone, if it would even by physically possible to fit a whole brain through such a small skull cavity. That's not even mentioning that the skull bone was severely fractured around the large defect.
Neurologist Joe Riley pointed this out years ago, to demonstrate why the HSCA's interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are anatomically impossible.
-
Okay, well usually normal human beings don't say "slightly above the EOP" when they mean "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". So do you think the hole was right next to the EOP?
It could not have been very high above the EOP. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy late, after the top of the skull had been separated in order to remove the brain, and yet he always said that he could still examine the EOP wound as a perforation in the occipital bone, undisturbed by large skull cavity above it. How then could there be an entry wound on the top of the head while keeping with Finck's statements? I believe that it would be considered improper in any brain removal procedure such as this is not remove occipital bone, if it would even by physically possible to fit a whole brain through such a small skull cavity. That's not even mentioning that the skull bone was severely fractured around the large defect.
Neurologist Joe Riley pointed this out years ago, to demonstrate why the HSCA's interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are anatomically impossible.
Micah,
The wound was not 4 to 5 inches above the EOP. It was less than an inch above the EOP.
-
Micah,
The wound was not 4 to 5 inches above the EOP. It was less than an inch above the EOP.
And yet you are a single-assassin theorist?
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/EOPwound.png)
-
WC
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/wcheadwound.jpg)
HSCA
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca3.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/457px-JFK_skull_trajectory.jpg)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/180-10086-10295_0002a2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/burkleyoralhistory.jpg1.jpg)
-
From Dr. Pierre Finck's 2/24/1969 Clay Shaw trial testimony:
A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the eck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.
[...]
Q: Colonel, could you tell me, using myself as an example, approximately what the loca- tion in my head would be 100 millimeters above my external occipital protuberance?
A: 100 millimeters is approximately 4 inches. This is the external occipital protuberance. My finger is approximately 4 inches and at a place here which is approximately the location here.
Q: About right here, Colonel, 'cause I can't see you.
A: Approximately here, Mr. Oser.
Q: Now, Colonel, I believe you said that you are familiar with the report of Drs. Carns, Fisher, Morgan, and Moritz, as having reviewed and returned in 1968, I ask you whether or not you disagree with their findings, Colonel, that after viewing the X-rays of the President they found a hole in the President's head 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance?
A: I can't say I agree or disagree with this for the following reasons: This measurement refers to X-ray films. On of this Panel Review -- what is the exhibit number of this?
Q: I now mark it as State-73 -- 72, I am sorry.
A: On of this Panel Review of 1968, which I read for the first time in 1969, I read: "One of the lateral films of the skull" -- and this refers to a general section heading you will find on "Examination of X-ray Films" on Page 9, as I read this, I interpret this statement of as a measurement based on X-ray films. So there was a difference between measurements made on X-ray films and photographs or photograph ual measurements on the cadaver.
Q: Do you disagree with the fact that these four doctors are qualified in the field of Pathology?
A: They are definitely, three of them, three of them are qualified pathologists, and the fourth doctor is a radiologist.
Q: Radiology is in what field of medicine?
A: Radiology is the study of X-rays for diagnostic reasons or for the reasons of treating with radiation.
Q: Would you say, Colonel, that a radiologist is the best qualified person in the field of medicine to read an X-ray?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find in reading that report any mention by these four gentlemen, or these four doctors, of any hole in the President's head being one inch slightly above the occipital protuberance bone?
A: I do not find the measurement as one inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance in this State-72.
Q: Colonel, could you step down, and using State Exhibit 70, show me the approximate location in correlation to the size of the diagram, or the illustration, where 100 millimeters would be above the occipital protuberance bone.
A: On which one?
Q: I will repeat my question. Using State Exhibit 70, Colonel, would you show me the approximate location of 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone in relation to the size of this particular illustration as it appears in this exhibit.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this exhibit does not purport to be a scale exhibit and as I said before, it is not a three- dimensional photograph. I doubt if the Doctor could locate this bone, and if he could, any estimate of distance would be useless because it does not purport to be to scale.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Doctor used this exhibit saying this is the approximate location he found, and I am now asking him the approximate location that four doctors examining X-rays said it was 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone, and I think he can tell the approximate location of that.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond's objection is that it is not a picture of the rear of the base of the skull, and for that one reason Mr. Dymond doesn't see how the witness could put it any relation with respect to the rear of the skull and moving laterally across the skull.
MR. DYMOND: He has already done this on Mr. Oser's head, which is three dimensional.
MR. OSER: Still and all he used this exhibit showing at least a portion of the back of the skull and a line going over the top of the skull which would indicate at least to me the approximate mid-part of the head, and I fail to see why the Colonel cannot indicate the approximate location 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone. I know it is not drawn to scale, but I am only asking him for the approximate location.
THE COURT: Could he not do it better in the figure in your autopsy sheet there?
MR. OSER: But, Your Honor, that may well be, but since the Doctor has used this exhibit and said this is where he found a hole, I think the State has a right also to show as a result of the testimony where approximately 100 millimeters was.
THE COURT: You understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, but I can't see how I can be asked to place a wound that was measured on X-rays, I don't understand how I can be asked to put on a illustrative drawing showing the location of the wound as we approximately saw it and not based on measurements on X-rays. Those 100 millimeters --
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Tell me how did the illustrator do it if he didn't have the X-rays and photographs?
A: He did not.
Q: Then how did he do it?
A: Because he was told by Dr. Humes about the approximate location of that wound in the back of the head on the right side and approximately one inch from the external occipital protuberance and slightly above it.
Q: He was told by Commander Humes that?
A: To my knowledge the illustrator making those drawings made them according to the data provided by Dr. Humes.
Q: Let me ask you this then, Colonel: Am I correct in stating that you said that the area I am pointing to right now is the approximate location where four inches above my protuberance bone is?
A: On your head I agree but the measurement of 100 millimeters was made on an X-ray and that is why I am reluctant to say.
Q: Made by a radiologist, one was a member of the American Board of Radiology?
A: I don't know that. That report is signed by four people, there were four to sign it.
Q: Didn't you say one was a radiologist?
A: To my knowledge.
Q: And a radiologist deals in X-rays?
A: A radiologist deals with X-rays and the interpretation of them.
MR. OSER: Again I call for the witness to put the approximate location because there has been testimony on direct examination as well as cross-examination, and because the Defense introduced a picture of Exhibit 388 in Defense Exhibit 67 and I think the State has a right to use this for further witnesses and further cross-examination of the Doctor. I call for this location.
MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has said that he can't do it.
THE COURT: He already testified that the or that there is somewhat of a difference between locations on there and in X-rays and I am not going to force him to do it.
MR. OSER: Then I ask that he mark it on State-68.
THE COURT: If he can do it.
MR. OSER: Four inches above the external occipital protuberance on the descriptive sheet, State-68, and I, this is the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, and I presume you have used it before for autopsies and I ask that it be so marked there.
THE COURT: If the Doctor can do it.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I can put a wound on a drawing whereas the distance of that wound on an X-ray was given as 100 millimeters I can't do that on something that is different.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I ask the witness --
THE COURT: Let's see if I can clarify it. Dr. Finck, on the drawing of the rear of a human being, male, can you place with some kind of a pen or what have you the correction, if one was made, as a result of the four-man panel, as to what you all originally determined. If you can do it and if you can't, you can't do it.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I submit the Doctor is trying to explain that the distances --
MR. OSER: I don't want Mr. Dymond to testify.
MR. DYMOND: This is in support of my objection.
THE COURT: I will listen.
MR. DYMOND: That the distances on an X-ray measurement is not compatible at all with the distances on this drawing and would be impossible to transpose.
THE COURT: I will accept that. Take the witness stand.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, you are familiar with an autopsy descriptive sheet, have you seen something similar to this before and have you ever used something like this before in an autopsy?
A: It is quite common to use worksheets in autopsies.
Q: I ask you again, that wasn't my question, have you used them before?
A: I have used worksheets in autopsies.
Q: And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you have used before?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, it is repetitious. Your Honor has ruled on the question.
THE COURT: I will let the Doctor answer one more time. The question is -- Please read it, Mr. Reporter.
THE REPORTER: Question: "And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you say you have used before?"
MR. OSER: What is your answer?
THE WITNESS: I could place a wound higher on that drawing but again I don't understand why I am asked to do that.
MR. OSER: I don't think it is for the witness to determine that.
MR. WEGMANN: Let the witness answer.
THE COURT: If you say you can place it, I suggest you leave the witness stand, step down and go place it.
THE WITNESS: That would not be placed on X-rays, that would be a wound higher and approximately in this location.
MR. OSER: These are approximate and we can cover the matter.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Initial that, please. Thank you, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at this time I would like to make a comment for the record.
THE COURT: No, sir, you are not running the show. You either answer the question and give an explanation and don't comment.
MR. DYMOND: May we see whether this comment is in the form of an explanation of his answer, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the statement that you wish to make in further explanation of your answer to this question?
THE WITNESS: Definitely.
THE COURT: You may do so.
THE WITNESS: The mark I have made --
THE COURT: You can't volunteer information just because you wish to tell us about it. You can only give us answers to a question and then an explanation. There is a difference from what you want to volunteer and what you want to explain. If you want to explain you may do it but you can't volunteer a comment and that is the legal situation of the Court. If this is in further explanation, then I will permit it.
THE WITNESS: The mark I just made on -- what is the exhibit number?
MR. OSER: 68.
THE WITNESS: On Exhibit 68 does not correspond to the wound I have seen at the time of the autopsy. The wound as seen at the time of the autopsy was not as high as that. I did so because repeatedly I am asked to show on this drawing what would the position be of a wound approximately four inches or 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but I don't endorse the 100 millimeters for this drawing. Again the measurement was made on X-rays. I was more or less forced to put that on this exhibit.
MR. OSER: I want the record to reflect the witness was not forced.
THE WITNESS: I was asked to show on this drawing a wound four inches from the external occipital protuberance.
THE COURT: Let's go on to another area.
[...]
Q: Now, Doctor, referring to State Exhibit-68, and more particularly the sketch on the lower portion of this, and the red dot which you placed on the right-hand figure of that sketch, does that purport to represent accurately the location of the back head wound as described in the reviewing pathological report of 1968?
A: It does not, and let me explain this. I was asked yesterday by Mr. Oser to place a wound 4 inches or 100 millimeters, approximately, above the external occipital protuberance. The reason for doing so was that in the 1968 panel, P-A-N-E-L, in the chapter entitled "X-rays," this is S-72 on , you will find this figure of 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but in the first line of that paragraph you see the word "films" on one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 millimeters in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 millimeters on the external surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, so this measurement of 100 millimeters or 4 inches refers to a measurement made on X-ray film and not on the photographs or skull itself. I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it, so I was asked to put on the drawing a measurement coming from the X-ray measurement.
[...]
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in referring to State Exhibit-68, the autopsy descriptive sheet, can you tell me whether or not the mark placed on the rear portion or the rear diagram of a body which is indicated with the arrow and marked ragged, slating 15 x 6 millimeter, can you tell me whether or not this spot on this diagram corresponds to a position on the head of 1 inch, approximately 1 inches above the external occipital protuberand or does it apply to 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance?
A: It refers to an approximate location on this drawing and it refers to the wound I saw at 1 inch from the external occipital protuberance.
Q: All right.
A: It was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
-
Would it be fair to say that the EOP wound is the ultimate irrefutable problem in the medical evidence area?
-
And yet you are a single-assassin theorist?
That is correct.
-
Would it be fair to say that the EOP wound is the ultimate irrefutable problem in the medical evidence area?
What is problematic about the EOP wound?
-
What is problematic about the EOP wound?
That wouln't exit the face if it were a high-powered round from the Depository?
(https://i.imgur.com/y5Cu1yx.jpg)
Tracking Oswald part 5? No?
-
That wouln't exit the face if it were a high-powered round from the Depository?
(https://i.imgur.com/y5Cu1yx.jpg)
Tracking Oswald part 5? No?
(https://i.imgur.com/z3HcZUk.png)
Do you see that as problematic?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/z3HcZUk.png)
Do you see that as problematic?
Where does it say that high-powered rounds will deflect upwards like that?
And also why are there no bullet fragments in that area of the head on the x-rays?
And why no severe damage to the cerebellum?
-
Where does it say that high-powered rounds will deflect upwards like that?
The Carcano is medium powered, not high powered. Where does it say that rifle-fired bullets will not "deflect" upward like that? Intact bullets will assume curved paths in ballistics gelatin. Deformed bullets will begin curving sooner and to a larger degree.
And also why are there no bullet fragments in that area of the head on the x-rays?
"Many of the fragments deposited in the president's brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the head, in the car and at Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a "trail" of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This "trail" does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP's reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."- The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, By Larry Sturdivan, Page 201.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
And why no severe damage to the cerebellum?
Why should there be severe damage to the cerebellum?
-
The Carcano is medium powered, not high powered. Where does it say that rifle-fired bullets will not "deflect" upward like that? Intact bullets will assume curved paths in ballistics gelatin. Deformed bullets will begin curving sooner and to a larger degree.
What ballistics tests show that such a round will deflect sharply upwards upon encountering one layer of skull bone? Here is the Tracking Oswald part 5 ballistics dummy test:
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/2017/tracking-oswald/cranor-d.png)
"Many of the fragments deposited in the president's brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the head, in the car and at Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a "trail" of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This "trail" does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP's reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."- The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, By Larry Sturdivan, Page 201.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
What? No, fragments deposited at the base of the head could not have "leaked out" from a hole in the parietal bone.
Why should there be severe damage to the cerebellum?
Because severe damage to the cerebellum would be an inevitable obstacle for a straight-moving bullet. Do you think a 6.5 round deflected sharply upwards as soon as it got past a single layer of skull?
P.S. do you have a mobi file of JFK Myth to share?
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Medical_Evidence.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1019
The EOP entrance doesn't jibe with the official LN did it narrative.
Just like the photo of the top of JFK's right lung, which would have shown the direction and path of the SBT,
is no longer in the archives, the photos of the entrance wound on JFK's skull bone, the ones that would have shown the direction of the missile, are also no longer in the archive.
The location of the entrance of both wounds was altered to fit the LN did it from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.
Jerry Ford took care of the SBT entrance wound during the WC.
The Clark Panel moved the fatal skull wound entrance 4 inches.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shaw2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0050a.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0056a.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0097b.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0119a.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_ce388_hsca66_hsca48.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/finck2.jpg)
-
The Carcano is medium powered, not high powered. Where does it say that rifle-fired bullets will not "deflect" upward like that? Intact bullets will assume curved paths in ballistics gelatin. Deformed bullets will begin curving sooner and to a larger degree.
"Many of the fragments deposited in the president's brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the head, in the car and at Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a "trail" of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This "trail" does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP's reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."- The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, By Larry Sturdivan, Page 201.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
Why should there be severe damage to the cerebellum?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/disintegrated1.png)
-
What ballistics tests show that such a round will deflect sharply upwards upon encountering one layer of skull bone? Here is the Tracking Oswald part 5 ballistics dummy test:
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/2017/tracking-oswald/cranor-d.png)
What? No, fragments deposited at the base of the head could not have "leaked out" from a hole in the parietal bone.
Because severe damage to the cerebellum would be an inevitable obstacle for a straight-moving bullet. Do you think a 6.5 round deflected sharply upwards as soon as it got past a single layer of skull?
P.S. do you have a mobi file of JFK Myth to share?
Micah, I will respond properly when I have the time. It may not be until the weekend.
I don't have a digital file of JFK Myths. Sorry. Amazon Canada has a kindle version for $10 Cad.
https://www.amazon.ca/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination-ebook/dp/B0054R5C52
-
What ballistics tests show that such a round will deflect sharply upwards upon encountering one layer of skull bone? Here is the Tracking Oswald part 5 ballistics dummy test:
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/2017/tracking-oswald/cranor-d.png)
The round didn't deflect sharply upwards upon encountering one layer of skull bone. It "deflected" upward after encountering a layer of skull bone. The encounter with the skull bone had deformed it to such a degree that upon entering the brain it developed a lift that curved its trajectory upward.
What? No, fragments deposited at the base of the head could not have "leaked out" from a hole in the parietal bone.
Why not? Fragments would have also exited along with brain matter at the time of the head "explosion"
Because severe damage to the cerebellum would be an inevitable obstacle for a straight-moving bullet. Do you think a 6.5 round deflected sharply upwards as soon as it got past a single layer of skull?
When it passed through the skull, the bullet was no longer moving in a straight line trajectory. The cerebellum was far enough below the point of entry to escape extensive damage from the deformed bullet as it passed above on its curved trajectory.
-
Notice how I provided actual experimental evidence to show that such a shot entering near the EOP could not exit the parietal area and still be consistent with the rest of the of the official evidence. Could we at least both agree that a bullet traveling close to the speed of LIGHT couldn't deflect upwards upon encountering one layer of skull bone?
-
Notice how I provided actual experimental evidence to show that such a shot entering near the EOP could not exit the parietal area and still be consistent with the rest of the of the official evidence.
Micah, Could you provide that actual experimental evidence so that I can see it?
Could we at least both agree that a bullet traveling close to the speed of LIGHT couldn't deflect upwards upon encountering one layer of skull bone?
Can we agree? No can do. "Bullets traveling close to the speed of light" is above my pay grade.
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night
-
Micah, I accept what is in the autopsy report. The wound was slightly above the EOP.
I agree.
The EOP entrance actually works best with a bullet that is curving through the head, as ballistic expert Larry Sturdivan says real bullets do. The bullet curves upwards, exiting at a higher point on the head than one would expect (if it travelled in a straight line) allowing the three fragments to clear, or almost clear, the windshield.
In contrast, the cowlick entrance calls for the bullet to travel in a straight line, not deflected upon striking the skull on entrance, travelling a straight line through the head, then making an abrupt change of direction upwards upon striking the skull at the far side of the head.
I think the HSCA preferred the cowlick entry over the EOP entry, because that allows the sniper?s nest, the entrance wound and the exit wound to line up. They didn?t realize that bullets (which start to fragment) don?t travel in a straight line. And didn?t bother themselves with wondering why the fragments didn?t end up staying on this straight line but deflected upwards.
-
The following diagrams are crude but make it simpler to see how the HSCA was drawn to a false Cowlick entry theory:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/945/42090328211_ace1923fc3_z.jpg)
This shows:
** the direction of a shot from the sniper?s next
** a possible EOP entry location
** a possible Cowlick entry location
** the exit wound location
** the direction of the windshield frame, roughly where the fragments ended up striking
One fragment hit the windshield frame. Another hit a several inches lower, on the windshield itself. The largest fragment, 60% of the bullet, went on to slightly wound Mr. Tague, without (I believe) first striking the curb.
The HSCA looked at this and noticed that the (1) TSBD Sniper?s nest, (2) EOP entry wound, (3) Exit wound, did not line up. This caused them to closely look at the ?Cowlick? location, which would line up. And seeing what they expected to see, they found such a wound. And concluded the autopsy doctors must have been mistaken.
But they should have noticed that other locations did not line up. The crack in the windshield. The dent in the windshield frame. Nor the path required to hit Mr. Tague. Clearly, the bullet, or the bullet fragments, must deviate from a straight line, somewhere along the path. So, there is no compelling reason to insist that the entrance wound must be at a location that lines up.
Below is a diagram of the cowlick theory:
Cowlick Theory:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/912/42045838852_d251e75256_z.jpg)
There is a nice straight line from the sniper?s nest, through the cowlick, to the exit location. But not to the windshield frame. If this theory is true, there was no deflection caused by entering the skull, but there was a large deflection caused by exiting the skull. No ballistic expert would expect this, I believe.
Below is a diagram of the EOP theory:
EOP Theory:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/970/42045842412_5b438d9dc5_z.jpg)
Upon entering the skull, the bullet starts to fragment. This is because the bullet (unlike the bullet that struck both JFK and Connally at z222) struck bone, the skull, with about 90% of its initial muzzle velocity. The distorted bullet and/or fragments curve a good deal more than an intact bullet. This has been demonstrated in ballistic tests using ballistic gel.
Within a millisecond, while still within the head, the bullet fragmented into two and then at least 3 parts. The fragments would be rotating and the axis of rotation would be changing. The fragments would follow unpredictable curved paths. Throughout much of the path through the head, the bullet must have held together, while fragmenting, resulting in an upward curve. The direction of the curve was random. Once the fragments became separated, each fragment was free to follow its own path.
This is the path a ballistic expert would expect a bullet to follow. Not a straight line through the skull, then an abrupt, angular deflection upon exiting. One can learn about this from reading Larry Sturdivan?s book ?The JFK Myths?.
While there are any number of CTers who would disagree with this and claim this is not how bullets behave, I have never heard of any ballistic expert in the world, an expert who runs tests with bullets and ballistic gel (like Larry Sturdivan), who would disagree with Mr. Sturdivan. As a bullet fragments, the fragments follow unpredictable curved paths through a ballistic gel, or a body.
-
Ballistics dummy, approximate angle, Carcano round enters slightly above the EOP and exits the face, not the top of the head.
-
The following diagrams are crude but make it simpler to see how the HSCA was drawn to a false Cowlick entry theory:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/945/42090328211_ace1923fc3_z.jpg)
This shows:
** the direction of a shot from the sniper?s next
** a possible EOP entry location
** a possible Cowlick entry location
** the exit wound location
** the direction of the windshield frame, roughly where the fragments ended up striking
One fragment hit the windshield frame. Another hit a several inches lower, on the windshield itself. The largest fragment, 60% of the bullet, went on to slightly wound Mr. Tague, without (I believe) first striking the curb.
The HSCA looked at this and noticed that the (1) TSBD Sniper?s nest, (2) EOP entry wound, (3) Exit wound, did not line up. This caused them to closely look at the ?Cowlick? location, which would line up. And seeing what they expected to see, they found such a wound. And concluded the autopsy doctors must have been mistaken.
But they should have noticed that other locations did not line up. The crack in the windshield. The dent in the windshield frame. Nor the path required to hit Mr. Tague. Clearly, the bullet, or the bullet fragments, must deviate from a straight line, somewhere along the path. So, there is no compelling reason to insist that the entrance wound must be at a location that lines up.
Below is a diagram of the cowlick theory:
Cowlick Theory:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/912/42045838852_d251e75256_z.jpg)
There is a nice straight line from the sniper?s nest, through the cowlick, to the exit location. But not to the windshield frame. If this theory is true, there was no deflection caused by entering the skull, but there was a large deflection caused by exiting the skull. No ballistic expert would expect this, I believe.
Below is a diagram of the EOP theory:
EOP Theory:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/970/42045842412_5b438d9dc5_z.jpg)
Upon entering the skull, the bullet starts to fragment. This is because the bullet (unlike the bullet that struck both JFK and Connally at z222) struck bone, the skull, with about 90% of its initial muzzle velocity. The distorted bullet and/or fragments curve a good deal more than an intact bullet. This has been demonstrated in ballistic tests using ballistic gel.
Within a millisecond, while still within the head, the bullet fragmented into two and then at least 3 parts. The fragments would be rotating and the axis of rotation would be changing. The fragments would follow unpredictable curved paths. Throughout much of the path through the head, the bullet must have held together, while fragmenting, resulting in an upward curve. The direction of the curve was random. Once the fragments became separated, each fragment was free to follow its own path.
This is the path a ballistic expert would expect a bullet to follow. Not a straight line through the skull, then an abrupt, angular deflection upon exiting. One can learn about this from reading Larry Sturdivan?s book ?The JFK Myths?.
While there are any number of CTers who would disagree with this and claim this is not how bullets behave, I have never heard of any ballistic expert in the world, an expert who runs tests with bullets and ballistic gel (like Larry Sturdivan), who would disagree with Mr. Sturdivan. As a bullet fragments, the fragments follow unpredictable curved paths through a ballistic gel, or a body.
Joe, Why is the angle of trajectory in your EOP theory diagram so steep?
-
Joe, Why is the angle of trajectory in your EOP theory diagram so steep?
You are right. It should not be so steep. I was just coming up with three quick and crude diagrams to illustrate my point. The main diagram is the ?Cowlick? diagram that shows why the HSCA started their focus on the cowlick area. There was no way they were going to get the (1) Sniper?s nest, (2) entry wound, (3) exit wound and (4) the windshield/windshield frame to all line up. Nor is there any need to. Since bullet fragments follow curved paths.
When I have time, I will modify the ?EOP? diagram to show the proper angle.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/e3avvIB.jpg)