You guys talk about the large head wound but never deal with the duplicated OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that a sizable chunk of occipital bone is missing in the skull x-rays.
You guys talk about the 6.5 mm fragment but dismiss or ignore the duplicated OD measurements that prove that it is a ghosted object, which explains why there is no corresponding object on the lateral skull x-rays and why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the object.
You guys still claim that the autopsy x-rays and photos are all pristine and authentic but refuse to deal with the hard scientific evidence that they have been altered, e.g., the impossible white patch on the lateral skull x-rays, the non-metallic 6.5 mm object, the emulsion issues, the conflict between the skull x-rays and autopsy photos F3 and F5, the conflict between autopsy photos F3 and F5 vs. F8, the conflicts between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays (such as the magically disappearing low fragment trail in the skull x-rays), etc., etc.
You guys still refuse to accept the HSCA's acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt, even though it has been confirmed and even though its critics have been soundly refuted. Why? Because you can't accept that more than three shots were fired.
You guys still cling to the 1964 claim that only three shots were fired, which is why you must come up with pathetic excuses for rejecting the later credible accounts of extra bullets and bullet fragments being found in the limo and at the autopsy, even though one of them was confirmed by a doctor at the autopsy and by the petty officer who found the deformed extra bullet. Nah, they were "all" just "mistaken" or "lying." Right. . . .
On the other hand, you've shown yourself willing to believe anything however far-fetched as long as it intrigues your obsession for conspiracy.
You guys still peddle the SBT even after all the evidence from ARRB-released documents that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point because they and others could see that the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity,
Sort of proves the base-of-the-back-of-the-neck wound wasn't anywhere near T3.
because they could see this after pathologists removed the chest organs, angled the body, and probed again, because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. But, "nah," you say, "somehow, someway, by a process we can't explain, they were all mistaken, and never you mind that we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, which was why the second draft said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot!"
Failure to probe. Ever hear tell of rigor mortise? And muscle groups at autopsy can be in a different position than when the wounding occurred.
And on and on we could go.[/size]
This old, ridiculous yarn?! This is exactly the kind of stuck-in-the-past nonsense that I'm talking about. Let's just skip over the fact that the back wound had no exit point and observe that unless JFK's tailor-made collar had a choke hold on his throat, it would not have constricted the skin even remotely enough to affect the size of an exit wound made by a bullet that would have transited the neck in a tiny fraction of a second. Even assuming the collar was uncomfortably, unusually tight, the bullet would have exited the throat before the collar had a chance to react in any meaningful way to the bullet’s split-second passage.
Lattimer's tests prove otherwise.
And of course you are dismissing Dr. Carrico's report that the throat wound was above the collar, even though his placement is supported by his 11/22/63 admission note, even though he told the WC that it was above the collar, and even though he told Weisberg the same thing. You must assume he was "mistaken" or that he was lying.[/size]
Only Dulles says above the collar, but twice Carrico says the tie in reference to the level of the wound. We don't know what Carrico said to Weisberg or what questions were put to him; we only have a brief vaguely-worded memo about it. That means I think Weisberg may be applying his own bias, not that either one is lying. That's where your mind goes.
So in other words, any witness who says anything that you can't accommodate is either mistaken or lying. So the nurse lied to Henry Hurt,
There's a nurse who
spoke to Henry Hurt? And she "confirmed" they used scalpels to remove the clothing? Cite for this historic interview, please.
or she just erred. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said the nurses used scalpels to cut the clothing because they were in a desperate hurry. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said he saw no slits on the shirt and no nick on the tie before the nurses began cutting away the clothing.
Carrico said he didn't see the slits, but he also said he was looking at the head wound and not the clothing, and that he first saw the throat wound after the clothing was removed. He said they never examined the clothing, period, even after the life-saving efforts had been done.
Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell both erred or lied when they said they removed at least three sizable fragments from Connally's wrist. You see, you can't admit any of these things without destroying your entire theory of the case.
Now, Dr. Kirschner knew every little about the JFK case when he worked for the ARRB. I seriously doubt that he had even heard of the controversy over whether the throat wound was above the collar or how the front shirt slits were made. Doug Horne had to bring Dr. Kirschner up to speed on the basics of the single-bullet theory before he examined CE 399. [/size]
LOL! How did it do the damage to T1 that even the HSCA FPP acknowledged without starting to yaw? How? I've asked this question several times, but still have received no answer.
How much tumbling do you think it would induce with two-or-three inches of soft tissue left to travel and at the speed it was going?
And what about the other parts of the bullet's mythical journey? Frazier acknowledged that the slits were not what you would normally expect to occur with a bullet's exit and that they could have been made by a smaller projectile such as a bone fragment:[/size]
As you know, because I pointed this out to you, the FBI lab experts did not say the slits could have been made by a whole bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment. But Frazier decided to go beyond the lab analysis.
When are you going to admit you were wrong about the shirt slits' length? You said they were both the same length, but even the HSCA said they were not.
Cite, please. And you're talking about a millimeter difference.
And how about the nick on the tie knot? The nick is visibly inward from the left edge of the knot, so how could it have been nicked by an exiting bullet?
I don't know for sure it was nicked by a bullet, anymore than you can know for sure how the tie knot was oriented by time it got to Dealey Plaza.
Furthermore, unless JFK's tie knot was severely off-center,
"Severely off-center"? Geeze, Tennessee Williams wouldn't exaggerate that much.
an exiting bullet would have had to make a hole through the knot. Just look at the photo of the shirt slits; look where the slits would be located if the collar were buttoned; and you'll see that if a bullet exited those slits, it would have had to go through the tie knot. But the only defect on the tie knot is a tiny nick on the left side of the knot, and, again, the nick is not even on the edge of the knot. This fact alone destroys the SBT.
My 3D study shows the bullet going by on the left side of a tie knot as narrow as Kennedy's.
This cold, hard physical evidence has been around for decades, ever since Harold Weisberg obtained photos of the tie, but you guys still will not deal with it honestly and credibly.
And I notice that you have once again, for about the fifth time, ignored the fact that no metallic traces of any kind were found on the edges of JFK's shirt slits, not even when the HSCA subjected the slits to super-sensitive spectrographic and x-ray testing. The holes in the back of the coat and shirt had such traces, but, gee, surprise, surprise, the front shirt slits had none, not even a tiny speck.[/size]
Please show where bullet holes must necessarily have metallic traces and are not affected by things like saturation of body fluids.
The Haags are quacks who don't even know many of the basics of the case. The original size of Connally’s back wound, before debridement, was only 1.5 cm—the same size as the entrance wound in Kennedy’s head. It was 3 cm after cleaning and enlarging—as Connally’s surgeon, Robert Shaw, M.D., testified (4 H 104, 107; 6 H 85-86, 88). In his operative report, Shaw simply described the wound’s size after surgery, but in his testimony he said the original size was only 1.5 cm. And the holes in the back of Connally’s shirt and jacket were also 1.5 cm, per the FBI (5 H 64). Shaw also noted that the bullet created a “small tunneling wound” (7 HSCA 149), and he noted “the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it” (4 H 116). So, obviously, at that point the bullet had not yet begun to tumble or yaw to any significant degree, if at all.
The hole on the back of the jacket was "elongated in a horizontal direction approximately five-eighths of an inch in length and one-fourth of an inch in height". About 1.59 cm x .635 cm.
SMH. Umm, did you not notice that your ridiculous GIF shows a tear that looks nothing like the H-shaped tears in Connally's shirt? Did you somehow overlook this? And did you just not notice that your GIF has the bullet exiting at neither a horizontal nor vertical angle but at a diagonal angle in relation to the shirt?
Ballistics expert Michael t. Griffith reported today that bullets can only travel forward nose-on.
You keep embarrassing yourself with these clownish GIFs and diagrams, such as the HSCA SBT trajectory diagram that had the bullet entering above the throat wound and entering at a downward angle, and that put the exit point well below the throat! I mean, do you think that people cannot see these things or something? I just don't get it.
Hopefully they can see where you think the "throat" is in the HSCA drawing.
You still have not explained how a bullet could create two uneven vertical tears that have a horizontal tear between so that they form an H. It is not enough to simply insist that "oh, yeah, this could have happened." Okay, HOW could it have happened? HOW? Show me a single case where an exiting bullet created tears shaped like that. Describe the geometry and the movement that would have been involved in creating those tears with a whole bullet exiting the way your GIF shows, or exiting any other way for that matter.
Look, let's be honest: We both know that you can't explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. You just can't, and you know it. You won't admit it, but we both know it.[/size]
Fine, go on thinking bullets are H-shaped.
