Re: Motorcycle Policeman Hargis said Limo stopped !

[Royell Storing]

I did read it, Royell. I didn't say that they were administering medical id to the president while the coat was over his head.  How could she have seen a "massive head wound" when he is lying face up on the gurney?  The one and any way anyone could have seen the back of the head was to lift his head. Period.  We can argue about where the head wound was until the world ends, but nothing can change A. The words spoken to Theodore White by Mrs. Kennedy within 7 days of her husbands murder, where she gives a graphic description of where the head wound was and how she was trying to hold the TOP of his head down, and "maybe I could keep it in"--meaning the brain.  If she would have been trying to hold the back of his head on, she would have said "I was trying to keep the back of his head on", but she didn't.  And B. One witness, Chuck Brehm said he saw the top of the head "come off".  The autopsy photos of the top of the head reveal a large hole in top of the head.  The Zapruder film also reveals a large hole on top of the head and a large flap of skull turned inside out hanging in front of the ear, and this flap connects to the top of the skull, not the rear.    You film alterationists insist the film is fake, but that's your problem.   You also call Zapruder, Sitzman, the Newman's and Bobby Hargis either liars or mistaken in their description of what they saw when seeing the effects of the fatal shot to the head. which happened right in front of them.

         Your electing to use the eyewitness accounts of both Sitzman and Mr & Mrs Newman defeats your purpose. BOTH Sitzman and The Newman's claim that they saw JFK "Hit" with a shot between "The eye and the ear". Their eyewitness accounts corroborate a Frontal/Side shot = Conspiracy by definition.

[Joe Elliott]

         Your electing to use the eyewitness accounts of both Ms. Sitzman and Mr & Mrs Newman defeats your purpose. BOTH Sitzman and The Newman's claim that they saw JFK "Hit" with a shot between "The eye and the ear". Their eyewitness accounts corroborate a Frontal/Side shot = Conspiracy by definition.

Yes, but how could Sitzman and Mr. and Mr. Newman tell of the wound between ?the eye and the ear? was an entrance wound (which they assumed it was) or an exit wound or an ?explosive wound? (which is what it really was)?

And, of course, it should be noted that what Ms. Sitzman, Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman?s memory supports the Warren Commissions? conclusions, the HSCA conclusions, the autopsy doctor?s memories, the X-rays, the autopsy photographs and the dozens and dozens of frames of the Zapruder film show, a large wound on the right side of the head, extending well forward of the head, and fairly far back, and pretty high up.

But not covering ?the back of the head? as the CTers allege that all the Parkland witnesses remember.

[Gary Craig]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page
ARRB MD 44 - Sibert and O'Neill Report on the Autopsy (11/26/63)--"Gemberling Version"

[Joe Elliott]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page
ARRB MD 44 - Sibert and O'Neill Report on the Autopsy (11/26/63)--"Gemberling Version"

If one clicks on the following link, one can find out that:

https://books.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1059&lpg=PA1059&dq=%22as+well+as+surgery+of+the+head+area%22&source=bl&ots=6BO6V1SCsi&sig=Uvckv2QCY2XIxtwH687MCMqorDc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYzvyCtJLbAhVJ6WMKHYwNAOYQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=%22as%20well%20as%20surgery%20of%20the%20head%20area%22&f=false



The ?surgery of the head area? was just the autopsy doctors initial impression. They saw that a good part of the brain was missing. A body generally would not have a good part of the brain missing unless surgery had been performed to remove it. Autopsy of people shot through the head with a rifle bullet are not real common, so it is natural for this to be the initial impression and the FBI agent wrote down the doctor?s impressions as they examined the body.

It soon became apparent that there were no other signs of surgery to the head region. Just the missing portion of the brain. It appears the doctors did not make this clear to the FBI agent who was taking notes.

A portion of the brain was removed by the explosive wound within the initial 10 milliseconds of the wound. One can see this in frame z313. This is not a typical wound and usually does not happen, so it?s natural for the doctors to initially conclude that surgery had been performed as soon as they perceived that some of the brain was missing.

[Matt Grantham]

 Is it just me or does the most comprehensive view of the top of the skull at autopsy look very much like straight edges. on the left edge of the wound as well as the one running perpendicular to that, just like a saw . who a couple of witnesses to the illicit autopsy have stated seeing used by Humes, would make?

[Jack Trojan]

The ?surgery of the head area? was just the autopsy doctors initial impression. They saw that a good part of the brain was missing. A body generally would not have a good part of the brain missing unless surgery had been performed to remove it. Autopsy of people shot through the head with a rifle bullet are not real common, so it is natural for this to be the initial impression and the FBI agent wrote down the doctor?s impressions as they examined the body.

It soon became apparent that there were no other signs of surgery to the head region. Just the missing portion of the brain. It appears the doctors did not make this clear to the FBI agent who was taking notes.

Wow, you certainly are a dancer for the cause. Are you telling us that the following head anomaly was not the product of postmortem surgery?

A portion of the brain was removed by the explosive wound within the initial 10 milliseconds of the wound. One can see this in frame z313. This is not a typical wound and usually does not happen, so it?s natural for the doctors to initially conclude that surgery had been performed as soon as they perceived that some of the brain was missing.

There is no other explanation for an explosive wound than an explosion. A FMJ bullet cannot explode. Just ask the MB. The "Jet Effect" is BS. It always follows the trajectory of the bullet. We should expect to see a blow out where the postmortem surgery was performed. Did the Jet Effect cause all this damage?



And lastly, why do you assume that an edited copy of the Z film is authentic? Where is the original film and why has the FBI withheld it for 50+ years? Edited copies on their own are worthless. Especially if conspirators release them.

[Matt Grantham]

 I can't find the quote right now, but I believe either Steve or Joe, at one point claimed the the scalp flap that only appears on Zapruder and at Bethesda, actually covered the rear exit wound?

[Joe Elliott]

Wow, you certainly are a dancer for the cause. Are you telling us that the following head anomaly was not the product of postmortem surgery?

Well, based on my experience with performing surgeries, I don?t think the incisions would have been made nearly so crudely. As least, not by me. Actually, my experience with surgeries is limited to bandaging cut fingers.

I have no idea what differences between a hole in the skull made by surgery cut compared with one made by an explosive wound.

Question:

Can you name a single doctor who thinks that this looks like the result of surgery and not an explosive wound?

There is no other explanation for an explosive wound than an explosion. A FMJ bullet cannot explode. Just ask the MB. The "Jet Effect" is BS. It always follows the trajectory of the bullet. We should expect to see a blow out where the postmortem surgery was performed. Did the Jet Effect cause all this damage?

The WCC/MC bullet did not explode. It fragmented. While called a non-frangible bullet, the WCC/MC was fragmentation resistant, not fragmentation proof. The bullet can and will fragment if he strikes bone at close to it?s muzzle velocity, which is what the bullet at z312 did, and the bullet at z222 did not.

While the bullet did not explode, or even fragment, it did cause an explosive wound. The bullet does not have to explode to cause an explosive wound in the head.

Question:

Can you a name a single ballistic expert who does not thing that this would could have been caused by a WCC/MC bullet? Or who disagrees with the points I have made, which I got from Larry Strudivan?s ?The JFK Myths??

And lastly, why do you assume that an edited copy of the Z film is authentic? Where is the original film and why has the FBI withheld it for 50+ years? Edited copies on their own are worthless. Especially if conspirators release them.

Logic. What good would modifying these frames do, when they have no idea what other films and photographs were also taken and need modifying. Unless there was a Large, Secret and Enduring Conspiracy that would be confident of intercepting all such photographs, because they process all photographs and film.

Was it even possible, in 1963, to modify these films and autopsy photographs, without failing various tests, like by 3-D images. CTers see no need to do the same. Break open a melon, film and photograph it and modify all the films and photographs that can fool the experts. Who would fail to tell which set of photographs were real and which set were modified. All that is needed is to suggest that this was possible and to assume that it was done, and that is good enough.