Discussion:
The Lost Bullet: Max Holland Gets Lost In Space
(too old to reply)
Raymond
2012-01-09 20:23:24 UTC
Permalink
The Lost Bullet: Max Holland Gets Lost In Space
Review by Jim DiEugenio

Max Holland first surfaced in the JFK case when John McAdams did,
after the release of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. His first writings
appeared in academic historical journals and he took aim at writers on
the Kennedy case like Peter Dale Scott. For some strange and
unfathomable reason, The Nation then hired him and he wrote about the
Kennedy case there for a number of years. He was housed at this time
at the Miller Research Center at the University of Virginia. This is
supposed to be a sort of scholarly base where academics can do
research through grants in aid. One of the directors there was Philip
Zelikow; the executive consul of the much criticized 9-11 Commission.
After writing for The Nation, he then set up his own web site called
Washington Decoded. (For a very good overview of the man’s career
concerning this case, click here) But some of his pieces have been
turned down by more mainstream organs. So he goes where they will not
be refused: the CIA’s own web site.

Robert Stone is a long time documentary filmmaker who has made many
films since his first, which was called Radio Bikini in 1988. From
1988 to 2010 he worked for PBS and The American Experience program.
While there, in late 2007, he produced and directed a film about the
JFK case called Oswald’s Ghost. Although the film was skillfully done,
the skill covered up a rather blatant propaganda piece that ignored
much of the new evidence and relied on discredited talking heads to
pin the Kennedy assassination on Lee Harvey Oswald. (See my review
here)
http://www.ctka.net/lho_ghost.html

Well, on November 20, 2011, for the 48th anniversary of JFK’s murder,
these two teamed up to create another propaganda piece. Presented on
the National Geographic cable outlet, it was called The Lost Bullet.
The concept for this program goes way back to 2007. At that time
Holland and Johan Rush wrote an article for the web site of the
History Channel and postulated that the first shot fired in the
Kennedy assassination actually came much earlier than anyone had
previously supposed. In fact, it occurred even before Abraham Zapruder
started filming! If you can believe it, the authors theorized that the
first shot came just after the presidential limousine turned from
Houston Street onto Elm.


How ‘out there’ was this idea? Way out there. The Warren Commission
placed the firing sequence at around Zapruder frame 210 on to about
frame 313. The House Select Committee placed the first shot at about
Zapruder frame 189. Holland and Rush placed the first shot before
Zapruder’s camera rolled so it’s hard to apply a Zapruder frame to it.
It may go back to a (theoretical) frame 107.
A few months after the first installment of this bizarre theory
appeared, it was then repeated in an op-ed piece for the New York
Times. How bad was the piece? It was so bad that it was criticized by
the likes of Gary Mack and Dale Myers. And in no uncertain terms. They
made it clear they thought it was poppycock: both unfounded and
sloppily researched. The Holland article went through still another
transformation in 2008. This time Holland received help from Seattle
attorney and JFK assassination student Kenneth R. Scearce. It was
again harshly criticized from the same quarters.


None of this seemed to matter to Holland. Or to his producer Mr.
Stone. Why? Because they were on a mission. What was that mission?
Well, it is pretty transparent. See, the more you push back the time
for the first shot, the more time you give the (lone) assassin to fire
the entire shooting sequence. This has been a consistent objective of
the Warren Commission advocates from the start. Why? Because to them,
it gives their fall guy Oswald the necessary time to fire the
proverbial three shots from sixth floor window with a manual bolt
action rifle. Holland’s thesis, as we shall see, is so weak that it’s
this point that is the actual purpose of the show. (The other problem
is the rapidity of the final two shots: according to ear witnesses,
almost back to back, which is difficult to imagine with that
Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle. Talking head Holland mentions
this but does not deal with it.)

II
Because this is a Robert Stone production it begins with people
crowding around in Dealey Plaza and shots of Robert Groden selling his
literature there. As shown in his previous film, Oswald’s Ghost, Stone
likes these kinds of shots. It gives him an opportunity to do four
things:
1.) Show that this is an ongoing mystery that confuses the public
2.) Blame this confusion on the Warren Commission critics
3.) Show at least one critic selling his products in Dealey Plaza
4.) Ending with his recurrent theme that the real reason for the
confusion is that people just cannot accept a socially maladjusted
loser like Oswald killed an exalted leader like John Kennedy.
(This last refrain originated with CIA asset Priscilla Johnson at the
15th anniversary. Stone actually featured this Agency shill in his
previous film, without telling the viewer who she was.)

The narration then continues with a huge whopper. The voice says
something like Max Holland will now lead a team of researchers in re-
opening the Kennedy case to see if Oswald could really have gotten off
three shots the Warren Commission said he did. We are supposed to
believe that somehow Robert Stone does not know who Max Holland really
is. That he does not know that Holland has been a shameless
cheerleader for the official story since at least 1994. That he has
spared no time or energy in smearing the critics. Stone doesn’t know
that this particular piece of flotsam he is about to demonstrate has
been around (and gotten roasted) since 2007?

Sorry Robert. You do know. And you are trying to sell the public that
you are taking an objective approach, when you are not. Stone’s
advocacy will be further demonstrated when he trots out his ballistics
expert. If you can believe it, it is Larry Sturdivan. A guy who
actually worked for the Warren Commission. And whom Robert Blakey
actually used for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA),
to prop up the ludicrous single bullet theory. With this deception,
the show is not off to a good start. And it gets worse.

The narrator now intones that this show will now tell the truth about
what happened to each bullet’s trajectory that day in November 1963.
But guess what? It’s the Warren Commission’s scenario: three shots,
from that familiar sixth floor window; Kennedy hit twice and Connally
once. If you can believe it, the narrator says something like there is
a general agreement on this formula. There is none on this either with
the general public or with specialists in the case. Especially when a
detailed examination of the condition of the Magic Bullet i.e. CE 399,
its provenance, and it flight path is provided. As we shall see, this
does not happen here. Stone, Holland and Sturdivan are good con
artists. They knew better than to go into this matter.

The program now proceeds and Holland says he will work backwards with
his three Warren Commission bullets. Therefore, he begins with
Zapruder frame 313, the fatal headshot to Kennedy. And with this
segment, the program now descends into the purest advocacy. To use one
example: Stone and Holland do not even mention the fact that the entry
point for this bullet was switched from where the Warren Commission
originally placed it. They had it at the base of the skull, right
above the neck. Both the Ramsey Clark panel and the HSCA moved this
entry point upward by nearly four inches! Which means it went from the
bottom of the skull to the top, at the cowlick area. Why do they
ignore this problem? Because by ignoring it they do not have to
explain that if the bullet came in at the base of the skull, Z frame
313 shows that the bullet could not exit at the Warren Commission’s
point at the right temple, above and to the right of the ear. This
problem was pointedly illustrated way back in 1967 by Josiah Thompson
in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. (See page 111) Thompson also
demonstrated that the Warren Commission lied about this issue in their
illustrations to cover up this fact. By glossing it over, Holland and
Stone continue that cover up.

There is another issue here that the Dynamic Duo conceal. That is the
mystery of the 6.5 mm fragment. The Clark Panel saw something on the x-
rays that apparently the original autopsy team missed. Namely the
existence of a bullet fragment near the rear of the skull. This
fragment was also agreed to by the HSCA. The problem is that if that
is what it is, it creates another huge problem for the official story.
Because the two fragments recovered of this head shot bullet
constituted the front and tail of the bullet. Therefore, this fragment
must come from the middle of the bullet. So we are to believe that the
bullet broke into thirds upon immediate entrance and the rear of the
bullet somehow elevated itself over the center of the bullet—which was
left behind—and proceeded forward and out with the front of the
bullet. The show’s own expert, Sturdivan, has said this is not
possible. In the words of Henry Lee, “Something is wrong here.” And
neither Stone nor Holland wants to deal with it. Which shows the
reader how honest they are.
To the program’s credit, during this segment they show high definition
scans of the Zapruder film to demonstrate that the driver, Secret
Service agent Bill Greer, did turn around, but he did not shoot
Kennedy. This was always a nutty theory that no serous critic of the
official story advocated. But I am glad they addressed it here.

But then the mendaciousness picks up again. They admit that Time-Life
held the Zapruder film in their vaults for years without making it
public. Which is true. But they then say the reason was to keep the
graphic images of the headshot away from the public. Most informed
people would disagree. They would say that Time-Life, with all of its
ties to the intelligence community, kept this from the public because
this part of the film—with its unforgettable image of Kennedy being
hurtled backwards with incredible force and speed against the car seat—
betrays a shot from the front. And Oswald was behind Kennedy.

Holland does address this issue. He screen captures a frame from the
Zapruder film that shows the blood mist exiting from Kennedy’s skull.
It appears to be exiting slightly forward. Because of this, we are to
forget about Kennedy being hit so hard from the front that his whole
body rockets backward. What Holland does not say is this: When a
projectile hits the skull, it creates a medical phenomenon called
cavitation. This is, roughly speaking, a pressure center in the brain.
This pressure center then finds a means of escape. And often, this
comes from a weak point in the skull. Which happens to be near the
front. In other words, the exit point has nothing to do with the
directionality of the shot.

I could hardly believe what Holland and Stone did next. Using their
high definition scans from other films, not the Zapruder film, they
panned across the grassy knoll. They then announced that they could
not find a man with a rifle there. So they concluded the shot could
not have come from the front. Uh, Bob, Max. You could just have shown
a close up of the Moorman photograph and given the audience a hint of
the Badge Man image. And there are others images in the canon that
reveal something funny happening behind the picket fence—not on the
knoll. And you then could have related that to the testimony of people
like Lee Bowers and Sam Holland to close that argument. Stone and
Holland did not. Which reveals this is a propaganda tract.

III
The show now introduces Mr. Sturdivan formally. It then proceeds to a
discussion of some of the evidence against Oswald. It deals with it in
about the same way it deals with the headshot. Meaning it does not at
all go into the myriad problems the critics have demonstrated with it.
For instance, the show mentions something called a “handprint” on the
rifle. I think this word invention is to get around the fact that it
was not a fingerprint but a palmprint. And of course, the show does
not discuss the fact that the FBI expert, Sebastian LaTona, saw no
such print when the rifle went to FBI headquarters that night. Neither
does the show mention that FBI agent Vince Drain was the man who
picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police to ship it to the FBI. No
policeman told him at that time there was such a print on the rifle.
The palmprint only appeared after the rifle was returned to the Dallas
Police and after the FBI found no Oswald prints at FBI headquarters.
(Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs. 107-09)

This deceptive technique is fitting for what is about to happen next.
Which, even for Stone and Holland, is a bit wild. Using none other
than Larry Sturdivan—the inveterate Warren Commission sycophant—they
now try to demonstrate that the Single Bullet Theory actually
occurred. Before getting to that though, let me mention what Sturdivan
had just done for the producers previously. When assaying the
headshot, Sturdivan took a page from Gary Mack and his hideous Inside
the Target Car. He lined up his marksman from the middle of the picket
fence. Not the end. Again, as with Mack, this is deceptive. Anyone who
goes to Dealey Plaza will see that the shot from the end of the picket
fence is where most people think the fatal shot came from. But Mack
wanted to use the other location because then he could lie to the
American public and say that a shot from that location would have hit
Jackie Kennedy. Which it would not have. And Mack knew that before he
said it. So it was a premeditated lie. (See for yourself here)

Well, Sturdivan repeated that same lie here. He only said it in
passing, and he framed it with a conditional. But he did say it. So
even after this lie has been exposed for what it is, Stone and Holland
still feel fit to repeat it. This tells you all you need to know about
this program. If only it had stopped there. But it does not.

Sturdivan now trots out to Dealey Plaza, lines up the models in the
car, fires a laser at them and presto! He now says that the Single
Bullet Theory actually happened. Again, I wish I was kidding but I’m
not. Needless to say: Garbage In, Garbage Out. First, Sturdivan lined
up the models as Vince Bugliosi did in his book Reclaiming History.
Using false dimensions for the car, he has Kennedy way outside of
Connally. As Robert Groden will show with photographs in his upcoming
book, this was not the case. Secondly, and shockingly, there was no
discussion of the flight path through either man. All the program
showed was two green dots on the rear of the bodies. And it appeared
that Sturdivan showed the rear wound of JFK to be at the HSCA
location, down the back. The obvious question here is: Then why did
Jerry Ford move that location upwards from the back for the Warren
Commission? Holland does not ask this question. Probably because he
would then have to admit that this location makes it hard to believe
that the bullet would then exit through the neck. There is then no
discussion of why the cervical vertebrae in Kennedy were not cracked.
Which they would have to be if the bullet exited at the neck. Neither
does the show address the curious trajectory through Connally. That
is, through the chest, rightward to hit his wrist and then left to hit
his thigh.

And obviously, the program does not even mention two very salient
facts. First, the overwhelming evidence that the Magic Bullet, CE 399,
was switched. (See here for that evidence) And second, the compelling
evidence that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. Further, that the
FBI knew both of these facts and was complicit in the cover up. By
themselves, these two brief articles shatter the cheap dog and pony
show that Sturdivan is selling here.

Before leaving this (gaseous) segment of this phony program, let me
add one more ersatz announcement in it. Like Inside the Target Car,
Stone and Holland hired a military marksman. They actually say that
Oswald had the same training in rifle fire that their marksman had.
This is so ridiculous as to be ludicrous. Oswald had no special
training at all in marksmanship. His training was the same as that of
the scores of Marines he took rifle practice with. And in fact, when
Henry Hurt interviewed some of Oswald’s military cohorts, they were
aghast at the Warren Commission contention that Oswald could have
pulled off what happened in Dealey Plaza by himself. He was that poor
on the rifle range. (See Hurt, pgs. 99-100) Again, this is a fact that
this agenda driven show tries to cover up.

IV
Before proceeding to the program’s fraudulent finale, let us remind
ourselves of two main points. The show has not done what it said it
would do, that is trace the bullets in the Kennedy case. It has not
done this in any real way, or even come close. Further, it has not
searched for evidence of any other bullets fired that day, besides the
Warren Commission exhibits. Second, it has not in any real sense done
a new investigation, or reopened the case. I mean, how could it with
Larry Sturdivan there, the man who was involved in the original Warren
Commission inquiry? (How Robert Stone missed inviting Arlen Specter
escapes me.)

But now the show is about to proceed to its closing summation. The
program says there has been generally two schools of thought abut the
firing sequence. The Warren Commission allowed six seconds for the
shots to be spaced. This began with the president disappearing behind
the freeway sign, and then ended with Z frame 313. The HSCA said the
shots were begun slightly earlier than that. At about frame 189, which
would allow for about seven seconds. Yet this longer time clearly
allowed for a conspiracy since the first shot had to be fired through
the branches of an oak tree. And almost no one would be able to
believe that any marksman could have hit the target with that
obstruction there. (Let us not ever forget, the greatest sniper of the
Vietnam era, Carlos Hathcock, said that he repeatedly tried to do what
the Commission says Oswald did. He failed every time.)


Obviously, Holland is disturbed by these results, which eliminate
Oswald as the lone gunman. So what does he do? He says that the first
shot happened even before Zapruder started filming! The problem with
this is that if one watches the opening frames of Zapruder’s film as
the car has entered Elm Street, there is nothing to indicate anyone
has fired a shot. And when Vince Bugliosi tried to move the first shot
up a bit more than the HSCA did, Pat Speer showed that he embroidered
some witness testimony with the liberal use of ellipsis to accomplish
that goal. (See here)


Holland first takes out a high definition scan to show what he says is
someone or something in the Hughes film in the sixth floor window.
Being as objective as I could be, I could not determine if it was a
person or boxes. It was that obscure. And for the show to trumpet this
as a “new discovery” is more pretentious gas. At the end of Josiah
Thompson’s 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas, he uses the exact same
film and frames to make the argument that there are two men in that
window. (See pgs. 244-46) Except Thompson brings in supplementary
evidence that supports his idea—and it's credible. To show you just
how strained this film is, Holland and Stone are so biased that they
go beyond saying that this rather indeterminate frame represents a
single person. Holland actually said it was Oswald! For pure arrogant
zealotry this might match Dale Myers going on national TV in 2003 and
lying his eyes out by saying his phony computer simulation had just
proven something called the "Single Bullet Fact".


Holland then says that the positioning of the shells at the scene
proves there was an early shot and then two close together. On its
face, this is silly. One might ask Stone and Holland: Did you do any
experiments to prove this? But really it’s worse than that. Tom Alyea
was a local TV photographer who entered the Texas School Book
Depository before the building was sealed off. He was one of the very
first to see the three shells lying on the sixth floor. (Michael
Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 12) He had trouble
filming the shells because of the boxes. Captain Will Fritz then
picked them up for him to better shoot a picture. Fritz then threw the
shells back on the floor! Which means, of course, that the photos of
the shells we have now in the Commission volumes are not of the
original crime scene. But Alyea went even further. He told certain
researchers than when he first saw the shells they were not scattered
as they appear in the volumes today. He stated you could span the
three shells with your hand. (Interview with Larry Hancock, 11/19/11)


I now make a further challenge to Stone and Holland: please fire a
Mannlicher Carcano rifle and eject three shells from it. Do it one
hundred times. Call me when you get three shells ejected perfectly
within a hand span. I will tell the reader right now: I will never get
that phone call.


Holland also uses the testimony of the three depository workers below
the sixth floor who later said that they heard a rifle bolt working
and shells falling to the floor above them. What he does not say is
that this was not their original testimony in their first Secret
Service report. Patricia Lambert long ago wrote about this in a long
two-part article. (See here)


Holland also uses witnesses Tina Towner and Amos Euins for this
earlier shot. But if one clicks through to the article by Dale Myers I
linked to at the start, one can see that he is not faithful to what
they originally said. Further, he has selectively used Euins’
testimony in two ways. First, he has cut out the parts that seem to
eliminate Oswald as the assassin e.g. seeing a bald spot on the back
of his head. (Rodger Remington, Biting the Elephant, pgs. 116-18)
Second, he does not detail all the problems with Euins as a witness.
For instance Euins told the Secret Service he was not sure if the
assassin was black or white. When asked definitively, he told the
Secret Service he was black. He then told the police he was white.
(ibid, p. 126) When he was asked if he could recognize the man if he
saw him again, he said he could not. (Ibid, p. 127) He also said he
heard four shots. (Ibid p. 115)


As the reader can see, Holland has shamelessly cherry picked the
testimony of a 15-year-old boy.


V

Holland and Stone now proceed to the climax of their tedious opus.
Holland asks: If the shot came that early, with the car that much
closer to the window, how did the shot miss? This rhetorical question
leaves out two key points. First, Holland and Stone have not come
close to proving the shot came that early. Second, they ignore an
obvious adjunct question. Namely, if the assassin was going to fire
that early on Elm, why did he not fire when the car was right below
him on Houston? With a telescopic site, this is close to a can’t miss
shot.


Well, this is what Holland and Stone give us as their answer to this
question. They say that this shot missed because it hit a traffic
light on a metal pole first. Now one has to ask another obvious
question: If that were the case, when the assassin went to line up the
shot, would he not see the pole and light in his cross hairs?


But further, as Holland states, this has to be the shot that then went
forward to hit near James Tague standing on a concrete island beneath
the overpass near Commerce Street (and a piece of the curb cut his
face). Now this Tague/curb hit had always been very difficult to
explain for those maintaining the official fiction of three shots. In
fact, the FBI simply decided to cut it out of their report. This
eliminated the Magic Bullet fantasy from their version. And this is
one reason the Warren Commission did not place that report in the
volumes. But yet, the people in Dallas would not let it go away. And
finally, the local U. S. attorney wrote a letter to the Warren
Commission about it. The Commission then had to include the Tague/curb
hit in their report. And this is one of the main reasons that the
Single Bullet Theory—or as Robert Groden calls it, the Single Bullshit
Theory—exists today. If one bullet hit the curb near Tague and one
killed JFK, there is only one bullet left to do the rest of the damage
to Connally and Kennedy.


For Holland and Stone to include the Tague hit on the trajectory of
this traffic light hit shows just how much they have migrated into
outer space. Consider this: they now have a bullet smashing into a
traffic light right out of the gate. But then this bullet has the
torque left to fly something like 400 feet further—one and a third
football fields—and then smash into a curb sending out shards of
concrete, cutting open Tague’s cheek.


Again, did Holland and Stone do any experiments on this? For the
traffic light is still there. I would have liked to have seen them. I
think it would have resembled a Buster Keaton movie.


But it’s even worse than that. As Harold Weisberg found out during a
protracted battle with the FBI, the Bureau did some metal testing of
the curbstone after they were forced to acknowledge the Tague hit.
They found something very odd. There were no copper traces in the
concrete sample. (Hurt, p. 136) If one looks at the ammunition
allegedly used in the shooting, this would seem impossible. The
bullets are literally coated in copper metal. Therefore, as Henry Hurt
concludes, this in itself proves, at a minimum, that Oswald did not
act alone. (ibid, p. 138) You probably know by now what Stone and
Holland do with this key information. That’s right. They don’t mention
it. I wonder why.


If you can believe it, it is even worse than that. Because it turns
out the producers did do experiments with the traffic light. But only
to see if a shot hitting it would leave a hole or not. Holland first
reported that there was a hole in the traffic light. But it was later
revealed that this was a separation in the metal that was part of the
design. And in fact, on the show, Holland admits there is no hole or
even a visible dent in the light today. So how does he conclude what
he does, that the bullet ricocheted off the light? He says that there
is a “white spot” on the light. How this proves a bullet hit it is not
discussed in any way. But as Pat Speer notes, the company that did the
experiments reported for the program concluded that if a shot hit the
light there would have been very visible damage to it; and from street
level. So much so that it would have been reported on the day of the
assassination. (Follow this link to post 11)


In other words, Stone and Holland likely knew that the reason d’être
for their show was wrong--before they went on the air. Does it get
much worse than that?


This farce of a program proves that, as with the three old main
networks, the cable TV channels are almost pathologically incapable of
telling anything close to the truth about Kennedy’s assassination. All
the rules of journalism are now thrown out the window. And farceurs
like Gary Mack, Robert Stone, and Max Holland are allowed to take
center stage carte blanche; with no one exercising any kind of fact
checking or standards review. As discussed here, four of the last five
cable programs on this case have been abysmal in every way. The only
exception was National Geographic’s own The Lost JFK Tapes. But now it
appears that that channel has joined up with Discovery Channel to
produce a show that actually ranks with the works of Gary Mack/Larry
Dunkel. Which I actually thought was not possible. But here it is.


All that Stone and Holland proved is that documentary films can lie as
much as fiction films do. In fact, they can lie even more.



----------------------------------------------------------------------



The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X

FLASH! This book is now available on KIndle for the lowest price ever,
of $13.25.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


The 13th Juror: The Official Transcript of the Martin Luther King
Assassination Conspiracy Trial
This book is the actual trial transcript, from beginning to end with
no editing, no deletions, no opinions or commentary. This is an
important and historic book for anyone interested in history or the
law, or who really killed Martin Luther King. Additional link for
discount and more information.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

CTKA Recommends:
Dissenting Views by Joseph E. Green
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, available in e-Book format, the 1999 groundbreaking work on the
Jim Garrison investigation, "Let Justice Be Done". William Davy's
classic book on the Garrison case is now available from the Amazon
Kindle store. Hailed by many as the definitive treatment of the New
Orleans DA's case, "Let Justice Be Done" can be ordered with one
click.

Please note that you don't need the Kindle device to read the book.
You can download the Kindle reader app for your PAC, Smartphone or
Windows 7 Cellphone for free from the Amazon site.
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/lost_bullet.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Canal
2012-01-10 03:03:08 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Raymond
And with this
segment, the program now descends into the purest advocacy. To use one
example: Stone and Holland do not even mention the fact that the entry
point for this bullet was switched from where the Warren Commission
originally placed it. They had it at the base of the skull, right
above the neck. Both the Ramsey Clark panel and the HSCA moved this
entry point upward by nearly four inches! Which means it went from the
bottom of the skull to the top, at the cowlick area. Why do they
ignore this problem? Because by ignoring it they do not have to
explain that if the bullet came in at the base of the skull, Z frame
313 shows that the bullet could not exit at the Warren Commission=92s
point at the right temple, above and to the right of the ear.
The bullet deformed and deflected up appx. 23 degrees as it penetrated the
rear skull slightly above the EOP.

Loading Image...

If you'll look close, [1] that low ENTRY, [2] the official EXIT POINT
(i.e. the corner of the largest late-arriving skull piece with the partial
circular defect that was beveled out and showed metallic residue on it),
and [3] the WINDSHIELD DAMAGE line up pretty well.

The fact that these points line up is no coincidence. Sure, I know this is
a two dimensional graphic, but Zapruder was nearly 90 deg. to the limo
when his camera took that frame [312]. Again, it's no coincidence.

Any surface that could deform the nose of a bullet to the degree that the
nose of the head-shot bullet was deformed [see CE-567], would most
certainly deflect the bullet off its original path. In this case the
bullet traveled appx. -16 deg. down from the SN and then deflected up
appx. 7 degrees as it penetrated the rear skull...the total deflection was
appx. 23 degrees.

Note that years ago I had approximated that deflection to be a few degrees
less than that, but Thomas Pinkston, an expert mathematician corrected me
on that saying the deflection was 23 degrees.

In any case, the trajectory is also consistent with the only channel-like
pathway through JFK's brain that was described in the Supplementry Autopsy
Report. That path went from the tip of the occipital lobe, through a point
just above the Thalamus, to the tip of the frontal lobe.
Post by Raymond
This
problem was pointedly illustrated way back in 1967 by Josiah Thompson
in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. (See page 111) Thompson also
demonstrated that the Warren Commission lied about this issue in their
illustrations to cover up this fact. By glossing it over, Holland and
Stone continue that cover up.
No one, including Thompson, considered the liklihood that the bullet
deflected up....which is why the drawings were "adjusted".
Post by Raymond
There is another issue here that the Dynamic Duo conceal. That is the
mystery of the 6.5 mm fragment.
There is no mystery. The 6.5 mm opacity was added after the autopsy. Read
Mantik's article about it in Assassination Science and what Larry
Sturdivan had to say about it in The JFK Myths.

Also note that the first "experts" (Fisher and Morgan of the Clark Panel)
to officially note the existence of the 6.5 mm thing didn't even say it
was a fragment that sheered off the head-shot bullet...that scenario was a
creation based on the imagaination of Lattimer (whose work was otherwise
excellent, IMO) and the Rockefeller Commission working overtime....a
conclusion later endorsed by the HSCA, Posner, and VB.

That said, read what the ARRB forensic experts said about that so-called
fragment.
Post by Raymond
The Clark Panel saw something on the x-
rays that apparently the original autopsy team missed.
The autopsy team didn't miss anything..read their individual ARRB
testimonies about that.

Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.

Finally, note that Ebersole admitted having the X-rays in his possession
after the autopsy....supposedly to take measurements from (for a bust of
JFK) as ordered by the White house. Interestingly, that little task was
assigned a code name, i.e. "Aunt Margret's Skirts".
Post by Raymond
Namely the
existence of a bullet fragment near the rear of the skull. This
fragment was also agreed to by the HSCA. The problem is that if that
is what it is, it creates another huge problem for the official story.
Because the two fragments recovered of this head shot bullet
constituted the front and tail of the bullet. Therefore, this fragment
must come from the middle of the bullet. So we are to believe that the
bullet broke into thirds upon immediate entrance and the rear of the
bullet somehow elevated itself over the center of the bullet=97which was
left behind=97and proceeded forward and out with the front of the
bullet. The show=92s own expert, Sturdivan, has said this is not
possible. In the words of Henry Lee, =93Something is wrong here.=94 And
neither Stone nor Holland wants to deal with it. Which shows the
reader how honest they are.
They were confused...and didn't read all the testimony.

John Canal

[...]
--
John Canal
***@webtv.net
Mitch Todd
2012-01-19 15:10:09 UTC
Permalink
I have time for a quick little foray...
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
John Canal
2012-01-20 01:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Todd
I have time for a quick little foray...
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.

So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?

Even things that make sense?

Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?

Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?

If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
--
John Canal
***@webtv.net
Mitch Todd
2012-01-22 19:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.
So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?
Even things that make sense?
Believe me, you have my pity.

It makes no sense for Ebersole (or anyone for that matter) would try to
add an ersatz fragment --really, what did they think they would
accomplish? It also makes no sense that anyone would do so on the AP x-ray
but not the lateral view. And it makes no sense at all that Ebersole would
undertake such a provocative and underhanded task in front of an untrusted
audience.

As for Custer, it's pretty well established that he was actaully in the
morgue during the autopsy, so he's not certified, 100% full of shit.
However, don't think for a second that the number is below 99%.
Post by John Canal
Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?
Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?
If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
You should already have a good idea by now what I believe it might be, as
much as we've been over it. And, no, I don't think that it's a fragment
that was shaved off on entry.
John Canal
2012-01-23 03:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.
So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?
Even things that make sense?
Believe me, you have my pity.
Not needed or wanted.
Post by Mitch Todd
It makes no sense for Ebersole (or anyone for that matter) would try to
add an ersatz fragment --really, what did they think they would
accomplish?
You're not thinking. What if they (Burkley?) noted that a low near-EOP
entry and a high exit didn't "seem" to line up with a shot from six floors
up? What if those same individuals thought adding a fragment up high might
just make people think that their added "fragment" sheared off a bullet
entering near it and that Humes et al simply made a mistake with their
near EOP ENTRY?

Ridiculous? If that's what you think, then why did Baden say that fragment
was evidence of a high hit?

It's obvious "they" were worried about that reported low hit being
consistent with a shot from the SN. Do you think such thoughts were
ridiculous? If you believe they were you're wrong...again. Heck even
McAdams (and many others) has said over and over here that if the bullet
entered near the EOP then the shooter must have fired from the trunk
(something like that). Also, even Humes knew there was a trajectory
problem...which is why he had Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50
degrees in CE-388 when Z-312 shows he was actually leaning forward about
half that.....if you're having trouble understandng my point, the extra
lean made an incorrect "straight through EOP entry and high exit
trajcetory" at least somewhat consistent with a shot from the SN.

The problem was that they assumed the bullet went straight through his
head.....they didn't consider a deflection as they should have, especially
after seeing the deformed nose (CE-567) of the bullet.

Also, they should have realized the bullet deflected up because if it
didn't it would have blasted the heck out of the cerebellum...and the
cerebellum showed no such damage.
Post by Mitch Todd
It also makes no sense that anyone would do so on the AP x-ray
but not the lateral view.
Evidently some thought they saw on the lateral what could have been a
fragment (that corresponded with the 6.5 mm thing on the AP) behind JFK's
right eye. Others think they saw something in the cowlick.
Post by Mitch Todd
And it makes no sense at all that Ebersole would
undertake such a provocative and underhanded task in front of an untrusted
audience.
They were all sworn to secrecy.

And to you I guess it makes more sense that he was ordered by someone in
the White House (gee, didn't Burkley have an office there?) to take
measurements from the X-rays for a bust of JFK (using the code name "Aunt
Margret Skirts", for that task) when JFK's body wasn't even in the ground
yet, not to mention at a time (following the autopsy) when the X-rays were
supposed to be secured for the eyes of E. Warren only?
Post by Mitch Todd
As for Custer, it's pretty well established that he was actaully in the
morgue during the autopsy, so he's not certified, 100% full of shit.
However, don't think for a second that the number is below 99%.
Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole taping fragments to
skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?
Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?
If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
You should already have a good idea by now what I believe it might be, as
much as we've been over it. And, no, I don't think that it's a fragment
that was shaved off on entry.
Do you think it represents an artifact?

How are you on probabilities?

What are the odds an artifact could actidently end up being just about the
diameter of the ammo LHO used and the same distance right of midline as
both proposed entry sites and conveniently in a location (vertically) near
a displaced skull fracture (which many thought was an entry wound)?

IMO, like the ad says, about the same as you being mauled by a polar bear
and a black bear in the same day.

Again we are arguing about something that can be easily settled.....IOW,
if I'm correct and F8 shows the entry near the EOP and all that we need is
for a some credible experts (sponsored by NATGEO?), who weren't friends or
associates of Fisher (of course, as far as credibility goes, you threw
Sturdivan and Zimmerman under the bus) to examine that photo and end all
this academic chatter.

Note that (evidently without thinking about the implications of what he
said) when I posted a copy of F8 with the "entry" enlarged, McAdams said
that the defect that I think is the entry is deep inside JFK's cranial
cavity. Then he quickly said that that defect is not the entry.

But when Zimmerman said the defect I said was the entry was indeed the
entry (remember, he and Sturdivan used a stereoscopic viewer to examine
the originals which they both said were quite clear) he [.john] had little
to say.

Even Fiorentino, I believe trying to cover for .john, said that the defect
I said was the entry may or may not be the real entry....to which I wonder
if they think JFK had some circular-like birth defect in his skull down
near his EOP...as seen in F8?

And we won't even bring up the fact that Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and the
FPP's Dr. Joe Davis saw tiny opcities clustered near the EOP on the
lateral (you can't see them on the copies that the HSCA published, with
the EOP area cropped) which are obiously the bone that was beveled out
from the inside skull table around the near-EOP entry.

And we aslo don't need to bring up the fact that the longitudinal
laceration that went completely though the brain entered in the occipital
lobe and any bullet entering in his cowlick would have entered in the
parietal lobe.

It's just a matter of time before the truth comes out...like I said when
F8 is properly examined...when we'll know who deserves pity.

I probably won't be around to see that, but I'll bet you will.

Just remember, I told you so.
--
John Canal
***@webtv.net
Mitch Todd
2012-01-25 03:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.
So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?
Even things that make sense?
Believe me, you have my pity.
Not needed or wanted.
Post by Mitch Todd
It makes no sense for Ebersole (or anyone for that matter) would try to
add an ersatz fragment --really, what did they think they would
accomplish?
You're not thinking. What if they (Burkley?) noted that a low near-EOP
entry and a high exit didn't "seem" to line up with a shot from six floors
up? What if those same individuals thought adding a fragment up high might
just make people think that their added "fragment" sheared off a bullet
entering near it and that Humes et al simply made a mistake with their
near EOP ENTRY?
Ridiculous? If that's what you think, then why did Baden say that fragment
was evidence of a high hit?
It's obvious "they" were worried about that reported low hit being
consistent with a shot from the SN. Do you think such thoughts were
ridiculous? If you believe they were you're wrong...again. Heck even
McAdams (and many others) has said over and over here that if the bullet
entered near the EOP then the shooter must have fired from the trunk
(something like that). Also, even Humes knew there was a trajectory
problem...which is why he had Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50
degrees in CE-388 when Z-312 shows he was actually leaning forward about
half that.....if you're having trouble understandng my point, the extra
lean made an incorrect "straight through EOP entry and high exit
trajcetory" at least somewhat consistent with a shot from the SN.
The problem was that they assumed the bullet went straight through his
head.....they didn't consider a deflection as they should have, especially
after seeing the deformed nose (CE-567) of the bullet.
Also, they should have realized the bullet deflected up because if it
didn't it would have blasted the heck out of the cerebellum...and the
cerebellum showed no such damage.
Oh, but I *am* thinking.... that your entire argument is built on "what if
Burkley..." Not a very safe place to play, I'm afraid.

As I've already pointed out, you are assuming that Burkley would have
known enough about the mechanics of the assassination --the relative
locations of the shooter, the victims, the exact postures of the victims,
etc-- to have decided what would have been an acceptable trajectory. You
have presented no evidence whatsoever that he would have known these
things at any time on Nov 22. You merely assert it and hope the rest of us
just go along. Burkley had no first hand experience to guide him: he was
so far back in the motorcade that he arrived at Parkland several minutes
after the President, didn't see the assassination, and never even mentions
hearing gunshots in the few statemtents he's given. He wouldn't have known
the TSBD from the Adam Hats building.

BTW, the autopsists were certainly aware that bullets deflect within the
body. That's why they had the entire cadaver (other than the hands and
feet) x-rayed. As one of them noted, bullets can do "funny things" in the
body.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
It also makes no sense that anyone would do so on the AP x-ray
but not the lateral view.
Evidently some thought they saw on the lateral what could have been a
fragment (that corresponded with the 6.5 mm thing on the AP) behind JFK's
right eye. Others think they saw something in the cowlick.
"Evidently" is a giant flag procaiming that you are begging the question
here.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
And it makes no sense at all that Ebersole would
undertake such a provocative and underhanded task in front of an untrusted
audience.
They were all sworn to secrecy.
And to you I guess it makes more sense that he was ordered by someone in
the White House (gee, didn't Burkley have an office there?) to take
measurements from the X-rays for a bust of JFK (using the code name "Aunt
Margret Skirts", for that task) when JFK's body wasn't even in the ground
yet, not to mention at a time (following the autopsy) when the X-rays were
supposed to be secured for the eyes of E. Warren only?
I figure that the "Aunt Margaret's Skirts" bit involved the creation of
the Rydberg diagram. Ever notice that those two pencil lines drawn on the
lateral view correspond exactly with the two trajectory lines on the
Rydberg drawing? There would have been no reason to have drawn the lines
at the time of the autopsy, and the correspondance between the pencil
lines and Rydberg's trajectory lines is glaringly conspicuous.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
As for Custer, it's pretty well established that he was actaully in the
morgue during the autopsy, so he's not certified, 100% full of shit.
However, don't think for a second that the number is below 99%.
Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole taping fragments to
skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?
Custer was talking about x-raying the three skull fragments that arrived
separately from the body, not the AP x-ray, so his statement is as off-
-the-wall for you as it is for anyone else. You need to have him working
on the AP x-ray, and that's just not what he was talking about. BTW, if
you read his deposition, he identifies the mystery object (I trust you
won't object to that term) on the AP view as a bullet fragment! You'd
think that he'd mention it if he knew (or even suspected) that the object
was bogus.

BTW, are you aware that Mantik was talking about his densitometry work at
least as early as 1994, three years before Custer talked to the ARRB.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?
Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?
If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
You should already have a good idea by now what I believe it might be, as
much as we've been over it. And, no, I don't think that it's a fragment
that was shaved off on entry.
Do you think it represents an artifact?
How are you on probabilities?
I used to be fairly good at the subject. More than enough to know that
really impobable shit happens all the time. Improbable is not a synonym
for impossible.
Post by John Canal
What are the odds an artifact could actidently end up being just about the
diameter of the ammo LHO used and the same distance right of midline as
both proposed entry sites and conveniently in a location (vertically) near
a displaced skull fracture (which many thought was an entry wound)?
Better than the odds that Burkley/the autopsists decided to falsify the
x-rays based on information that they did not know in order to hide the
location of the entry, then turn around and write an autopsy report
specifying the the correct entry, yet let the forged x-rays stand as the
originals without comment or explanation, even when no one would have
faulted them much for the entire charade, and when it would have saved
their professional reputations a great deal of grief. Sounds like a plot
recap for "Soap," doesn't it?
Post by John Canal
IMO, like the ad says, about the same as you being mauled by a polar bear
and a black bear in the same day.
Actually, I have this friend who's wife is a zookeeper, so that may be
more probable outcome than you might first imagine. Like I said, you never
know about the improbable.

I'll leave the rest, since it strays so far away from Custer and his
fabulosities, other than to mention yet again that the only support you
can muster for your interpretation of F8 comes from a mechanical engineer,
a chiropractor, a Poly Sci professor, and a professional John Fiorentino,
with nary an anthropoligst, anatomist, etc among them.

Now time to try on that bear-proof suit.
Post by John Canal
Again we are arguing about something that can be easily settled.....IOW,
if I'm correct and F8 shows the entry near the EOP and all that we need is
for a some credible experts (sponsored by NATGEO?), who weren't friends or
associates of Fisher (of course, as far as credibility goes, you threw
Sturdivan and Zimmerman under the bus) to examine that photo and end all
this academic chatter.
Note that (evidently without thinking about the implications of what he
said) when I posted a copy of F8 with the "entry" enlarged, McAdams said
that the defect that I think is the entry is deep inside JFK's cranial
cavity. Then he quickly said that that defect is not the entry.
But when Zimmerman said the defect I said was the entry was indeed the
entry (remember, he and Sturdivan used a stereoscopic viewer to examine
the originals which they both said were quite clear) he [.john] had little
to say.
Even Fiorentino, I believe trying to cover for .john, said that the defect
I said was the entry may or may not be the real entry....to which I wonder
if they think JFK had some circular-like birth defect in his skull down
near his EOP...as seen in F8?
And we won't even bring up the fact that Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and the
FPP's Dr. Joe Davis saw tiny opcities clustered near the EOP on the
lateral (you can't see them on the copies that the HSCA published, with
the EOP area cropped) which are obiously the bone that was beveled out
from the inside skull table around the near-EOP entry.
And we aslo don't need to bring up the fact that the longitudinal
laceration that went completely though the brain entered in the occipital
lobe and any bullet entering in his cowlick would have entered in the
parietal lobe.
It's just a matter of time before the truth comes out...like I said when
F8 is properly examined...when we'll know who deserves pity.
I probably won't be around to see that, but I'll bet you will.
Just remember, I told you so.
--
John Canal
John Canal
2012-01-25 16:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.
So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?
Even things that make sense?
Believe me, you have my pity.
Not needed or wanted.
Post by Mitch Todd
It makes no sense for Ebersole (or anyone for that matter) would try to
add an ersatz fragment --really, what did they think they would
accomplish?
You're not thinking. What if they (Burkley?) noted that a low near-EOP
entry and a high exit didn't "seem" to line up with a shot from six floors
up? What if those same individuals thought adding a fragment up high might
just make people think that their added "fragment" sheared off a bullet
entering near it and that Humes et al simply made a mistake with their
near EOP ENTRY?
Ridiculous? If that's what you think, then why did Baden say that fragment
was evidence of a high hit?
It's obvious "they" were worried about that reported low hit being
consistent with a shot from the SN. Do you think such thoughts were
ridiculous? If you believe they were you're wrong...again. Heck even
McAdams (and many others) has said over and over here that if the bullet
entered near the EOP then the shooter must have fired from the trunk
(something like that). Also, even Humes knew there was a trajectory
problem...which is why he had Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50
degrees in CE-388 when Z-312 shows he was actually leaning forward about
half that.....if you're having trouble understandng my point, the extra
lean made an incorrect "straight through EOP entry and high exit
trajcetory" at least somewhat consistent with a shot from the SN.
The problem was that they assumed the bullet went straight through his
head.....they didn't consider a deflection as they should have, especially
after seeing the deformed nose (CE-567) of the bullet.
Also, they should have realized the bullet deflected up because if it
didn't it would have blasted the heck out of the cerebellum...and the
cerebellum showed no such damage.
Oh, but I *am* thinking.... that your entire argument is built on "what if
Burkley..." Not a very safe place to play, I'm afraid.
It comes down to whose argument is the most unlikely one.

Yours: An artifact [accidentally?] ends up on the AP film being almost perfectly
round, 6.5 mm in diameter, 2.5 cm right of midline, and 1.0 cm below a depressed
fracture which some experts claimed was the entry. Moreover, as strange as that
opacity was, none of the autopsists recall either seeing and/or recovering it on
11-22-63.

And the other part of your theory that is a bit incredulous to many, but
evidently not so unusual to you, is that Ebersole was ordered by the White
House, after the assassination, to take measurements from the X-rays (for a bust
of JFK), with the x-rays supposedly being "off-limits" to anyone except Earl
Warren....and his task being assigned a code name!

That all washes with you?

Strange occurances having to do with a controversy don't bother you, do they?

My scenario?....well you know it....and yes mine does seem unlikely, but not
nearly (that's a gross understatement) as unlikely as yours.
Post by Mitch Todd
As I've already pointed out, you are assuming that Burkley would have
known enough about the mechanics of the assassination --the relative
locations of the shooter, the victims, the exact postures of the victims,
etc-- to have decided what would have been an acceptable trajectory.
While based on Custer's statements I did say the 6.5 mm thing was added shortly
after the assassination, it's actually unclear just when it was added. Ebersole
said he took the measurements from the X-rays within about a month after the
assassination.....that would have been more than enough time for Burkley and
others to do their rough calculations that resulted in them agreeing the
near-EOP entry and high exit didn't seem consistent with a shot from six floors
up....and then to take appropriate action.
Post by Mitch Todd
You
have presented no evidence whatsoever that he would have known these
things at any time on Nov 22. You merely assert it and hope the rest of us
just go along.
Again, it's unclear exactly when it was added, and I'm saying that scenario is
the least unlikely one (vs. yours).
Post by Mitch Todd
Burkley had no first hand experience to guide him: he was
so far back in the motorcade that he arrived at Parkland several minutes
after the President, didn't see the assassination, and never even mentions
hearing gunshots in the few statemtents he's given. He wouldn't have known
the TSBD from the Adam Hats building.
Again, it may have been days or even weeks (but, based on Ebersole's testimony,
I believe less than about a month) after the assassination that the thing was
added.
Post by Mitch Todd
BTW, the autopsists were certainly aware that bullets deflect within the
body. That's why they had the entire cadaver (other than the hands and
feet) x-rayed. As one of them noted, bullets can do "funny things" in the
body.
Oh so that explains nicely why their trajectory arrow goes straight through his
head in CE-388 and why they've leaned JFK so far forward in that drawing it
looked like he must have had a broken neck when he was shot obviously to make
their incorrect trajectory line up with a shot from the SN?

If they factored in a 23 degree upwards deflection of the bullet from its
original course coming from the SN there would have been no need to show JFK
leaning forward so much.
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
It also makes no sense that anyone would do so on the AP x-ray
but not the lateral view.
Evidently some thought they saw on the lateral what could have been a
fragment (that corresponded with the 6.5 mm thing on the AP) behind JFK's
right eye. Others think they saw something in the cowlick.
"Evidently" is a giant flag procaiming that you are begging the question
here.
Okay, try this. Humes and a few conspiracy theorists said the 6.5 mm thing was
behind his right eye. The Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA "experts" and just about all
the LNers say or said it was in his cowlick.

Note that By the time of the ARRB, Humes said he couldn't recall seeing in on
11-22-63....evidently he had finally woken up to the fact it wasn't even there
on 11-22-63.
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
And it makes no sense at all that Ebersole would
undertake such a provocative and underhanded task in front of an untrusted
audience.
They were all sworn to secrecy.
And to you I guess it makes more sense that he was ordered by someone in
the White House (gee, didn't Burkley have an office there?) to take
measurements from the X-rays for a bust of JFK (using the code name "Aunt
Margret Skirts", for that task) when JFK's body wasn't even in the ground
yet, not to mention at a time (following the autopsy) when the X-rays were
supposed to be secured for the eyes of E. Warren only?
I figure that the "Aunt Margaret's Skirts" bit involved the creation of
the Rydberg diagram.
Oh, yes, now I can see why a code name was used.....thanks. LOL.
Post by Mitch Todd
Ever notice that those two pencil lines drawn on the
lateral view correspond exactly with the two trajectory lines on the
Rydberg drawing? There would have been no reason to have drawn the lines
at the time of the autopsy, and the correspondance between the pencil
lines and Rydberg's trajectory lines is glaringly conspicuous.
Of course I've seen them. That could have been when "they" confirmed the
near-EOP entry, high exit trajectory didn't seem consistent with a shot from six
floors up. Indeed, extend the diagonal line back, and even with JFK leaning
appx. 26 degrees forward (which he was) that line would still point back in the
direction of the limo's trunk.
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
As for Custer, it's pretty well established that he was actaully in the
morgue during the autopsy, so he's not certified, 100% full of shit.
However, don't think for a second that the number is below 99%.
Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole taping fragments to
skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?
Custer was talking about x-raying the three skull fragments that arrived
separately from the body, not the AP x-ray, so his statement is as off-
-the-wall for you as it is for anyone else. You need to have him working
on the AP x-ray, and that's just not what he was talking about. BTW, if
you read his deposition, he identifies the mystery object (I trust you
won't object to that term) on the AP view as a bullet fragment! You'd
think that he'd mention it if he knew (or even suspected) that the object
was bogus.
He was talking about taping metal fragments to pieces of skull!
Post by Mitch Todd
BTW, are you aware that Mantik was talking about his densitometry work at
least as early as 1994, three years before Custer talked to the ARRB.
Yes, and your point is...?
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?
Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?
If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
You should already have a good idea by now what I believe it might be, as
much as we've been over it. And, no, I don't think that it's a fragment
that was shaved off on entry.
Do you think it represents an artifact?
How are you on probabilities?
I used to be fairly good at the subject. More than enough to know that
really impobable shit happens all the time. Improbable is not a synonym
for impossible.
Well, Paul Seaton has a masters degree in mathematics and is pretty good at
calculating probabilities and he said the odds on that thing accidentally ending
up in that precise location and that diameter were on the order of 10,000 to
one. I'M SAYING (EXCUSE THE CAPS BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING YOU TO LET THIS
SINK IN OTHERWISE) THE ODDS AGAINST THE SCENARIO I PROPOSE BEING ACCURATE, AS
UNLIKELY AS I AGREE IT SEEMS, ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN 10,000 TO ONE OR, IF
PAUL WAS OFF, WHATEVER THEY ACTUALLY ARE.

Truthfully, Sturdivan thinks it's an artifact and says, while my scenario is
possible, coincidences do happen...and says the 6.5 mm thing ending up
accidentally that size and shape and in that particular location is "one Hell of
a coincidence". Ya, right Larry....he worked for the government for some 40
years so I'm not surprised he thinks it was an artifact.

What I can't understand is why you hard-line LNers object to this scenario
because I'm not hardly saying it means that there was an assassination
conspiracy....just well-intended (but perhaps ill-advised) measures taken by
practical individuals.
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
What are the odds an artifact could actidently end up being just about the
diameter of the ammo LHO used and the same distance right of midline as
both proposed entry sites and conveniently in a location (vertically) near
a displaced skull fracture (which many thought was an entry wound)?
Better than the odds that Burkley/the autopsists decided to falsify the
x-rays based on information that they did not know
There was probably plenty of time to figure out that Humes' trajectory seemed
problematic...see JFK's lean in CE-388!
Post by Mitch Todd
in order to hide the
location of the entry, then turn around and write an autopsy report
specifying the the correct entry, yet let the forged x-rays stand as the
originals without comment or explanation, even when no one would have
faulted them much for the entire charade, and when it would have saved
their professional reputations a great deal of grief. Sounds like a plot
recap for "Soap," doesn't it?
But a lot more likely than that thing ending that diameter and where it
was...accidentally!
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
IMO, like the ad says, about the same as you being mauled by a polar bear
and a black bear in the same day.
Actually, I have this friend who's wife is a zookeeper, so that may be
more probable outcome than you might first imagine. Like I said, you never
know about the improbable.
I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
Post by Mitch Todd
I'll leave the rest, since it strays so far away from Custer and his
fabulosities, other than to mention yet again that the only support you
can muster for your interpretation of F8 comes from a mechanical engineer,
a chiropractor, a Poly Sci professor, and a professional John Fiorentino,
with nary an anthropoligst, anatomist, etc among them.
Serious question. Are you 100% certain the entry was not near the EOP...if it
wasn't and it was in the cowlick, I agree wholeheartedly that the scenario I
propose would be ridiculous.

So, please take one more look at this copy of F8.....

Loading Image...

......and remember these things: 1) it's only a multi-generation copy of F8, 2)
Zimmerman and Sturdivan both said the originals were extremely clear, 3) they
examined them using a stereoscopic viewer, 4) all the individuals who saw the
body and described where they saw the entry on his head said it was near the
EOP, 5) the near EOP entry is consistent with the cluster of tiny opacities seen
near the EOP on the lateral, 6) the near-EOP entry is consistent with the
longitudinal laceration through the brain described in the Supplementry Autopsy
Report, 7) before Zimmerman went to the NA he was uncertain about whether the
entry was in the cowlick or near the EOP, 8) Sturdivan had once testified the
entry was in the cowlick, and 9) four individuals replicated F8 with model,
computer generated 3D, and human skulls and determined the circular defect seen
in F8 was near the EOP.

Again, are you 100% certain the entry was not near the EOP?

FWIW, I'm 100% certain it was near the EOP.
Post by Mitch Todd
Now time to try on that bear-proof suit.
How about trying on your logic-hat?

John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Again we are arguing about something that can be easily settled.....IOW,
if I'm correct and F8 shows the entry near the EOP and all that we need is
for a some credible experts (sponsored by NATGEO?), who weren't friends or
associates of Fisher (of course, as far as credibility goes, you threw
Sturdivan and Zimmerman under the bus) to examine that photo and end all
this academic chatter.
Note that (evidently without thinking about the implications of what he
said) when I posted a copy of F8 with the "entry" enlarged, McAdams said
that the defect that I think is the entry is deep inside JFK's cranial
cavity. Then he quickly said that that defect is not the entry.
But when Zimmerman said the defect I said was the entry was indeed the
entry (remember, he and Sturdivan used a stereoscopic viewer to examine
the originals which they both said were quite clear) he [.john] had little
to say.
Even Fiorentino, I believe trying to cover for .john, said that the defect
I said was the entry may or may not be the real entry....to which I wonder
if they think JFK had some circular-like birth defect in his skull down
near his EOP...as seen in F8?
And we won't even bring up the fact that Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and the
FPP's Dr. Joe Davis saw tiny opcities clustered near the EOP on the
lateral (you can't see them on the copies that the HSCA published, with
the EOP area cropped) which are obiously the bone that was beveled out
from the inside skull table around the near-EOP entry.
And we aslo don't need to bring up the fact that the longitudinal
laceration that went completely though the brain entered in the occipital
lobe and any bullet entering in his cowlick would have entered in the
parietal lobe.
It's just a matter of time before the truth comes out...like I said when
F8 is properly examined...when we'll know who deserves pity.
I probably won't be around to see that, but I'll bet you will.
Just remember, I told you so.
--
John Canal
--
John Canal
***@webtv.net
Mitch Todd
2012-02-03 13:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.
So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?
Even things that make sense?
Believe me, you have my pity.
Not needed or wanted.
Post by Mitch Todd
It makes no sense for Ebersole (or anyone for that matter) would try to
add an ersatz fragment --really, what did they think they would
accomplish?
You're not thinking. What if they (Burkley?) noted that a low near-EOP
entry and a high exit didn't "seem" to line up with a shot from six floors
up? What if those same individuals thought adding a fragment up high might
just make people think that their added "fragment" sheared off a bullet
entering near it and that Humes et al simply made a mistake with their
near EOP ENTRY?
Ridiculous? If that's what you think, then why did Baden say that fragment
was evidence of a high hit?
It's obvious "they" were worried about that reported low hit being
consistent with a shot from the SN. Do you think such thoughts were
ridiculous? If you believe they were you're wrong...again. Heck even
McAdams (and many others) has said over and over here that if the bullet
entered near the EOP then the shooter must have fired from the trunk
(something like that). Also, even Humes knew there was a trajectory
problem...which is why he had Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50
degrees in CE-388 when Z-312 shows he was actually leaning forward about
half that.....if you're having trouble understandng my point, the extra
lean made an incorrect "straight through EOP entry and high exit
trajcetory" at least somewhat consistent with a shot from the SN.
The problem was that they assumed the bullet went straight through his
head.....they didn't consider a deflection as they should have, especially
after seeing the deformed nose (CE-567) of the bullet.
Also, they should have realized the bullet deflected up because if it
didn't it would have blasted the heck out of the cerebellum...and the
cerebellum showed no such damage.
Oh, but I *am* thinking.... that your entire argument is built on "what if
Burkley..." Not a very safe place to play, I'm afraid.
It comes down to whose argument is the most unlikely one.
It comes down to the argument is the right one, no matter how unlikely it may
seem. Like I've said, unlikely things --very unlikely things-- happen all the time,
leaving their more probable counterparts sitting dejected like a jilted prom
date.
Post by John Canal
Yours: An artifact [accidentally?] ends up on the AP film being almost perfectly
round, 6.5 mm in diameter, 2.5 cm right of midline, and 1.0 cm below a depressed
fracture which some experts claimed was the entry. Moreover, as strange as that
opacity was, none of the autopsists recall either seeing and/or recovering it on
11-22-63.
And the other part of your theory that is a bit incredulous to many, but
evidently not so unusual to you, is that Ebersole was ordered by the White
House, after the assassination, to take measurements from the X-rays (for a bust
of JFK), with the x-rays supposedly being "off-limits" to anyone except Earl
Warren....and his task being assigned a code name!
That all washes with you?
Strange occurrences having to do with a controversy don't bother you, do they?
My scenario?....well you know it....and yes mine does seem unlikely, but not
nearly (that's a gross understatement) as unlikely as yours.
You didn't bother youself with the simple task of reading my post before
replying, now did you?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
As I've already pointed out, you are assuming that Burkley would have
known enough about the mechanics of the assassination --the relative
locations of the shooter, the victims, the exact postures of the victims,
etc-- to have decided what would have been an acceptable trajectory.
While based on Custer's statements I did say the 6.5 mm thing was added shortly
after the assassination, it's actually unclear just when it was added. Ebersole
said he took the measurements from the X-rays within about a month after the
assassination.....that would have been more than enough time for Burkley and
others to do their rough calculations that resulted in them agreeing the
near-EOP entry and high exit didn't seem consistent with a shot from six floors
up....and then to take appropriate action.
Post by Mitch Todd
You
have presented no evidence whatsoever that he would have known these
things at any time on Nov 22. You merely assert it and hope the rest of us
just go along.
Again, it's unclear exactly when it was added, and I'm saying that scenario is
the least unlikely one (vs. yours).
If I remember correctly, you have Burkley directing the autopsists *at*
the autopsy to falsify the BOH photo by hiking up the scalp at the rear
of the head. That puts Burkley's putative decision regarding possible
trajectories on the night of Nov 22.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Burkley had no first hand experience to guide him: he was
so far back in the motorcade that he arrived at Parkland several minutes
after the President, didn't see the assassination, and never even mentions
hearing gunshots in the few statemtents he's given. He wouldn't have known
the TSBD from the Adam Hats building.
Again, it may have been days or even weeks (but, based on Ebersole's testimony,
I believe less than about a month) after the assassination that the thing was
added.
as above.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
BTW, the autopsists were certainly aware that bullets deflect within the
body. That's why they had the entire cadaver (other than the hands and
feet) x-rayed. As one of them noted, bullets can do "funny things" in the
body.
Oh so that explains nicely why their trajectory arrow goes straight through his
head in CE-388 and why they've leaned JFK so far forward in that drawing it
looked like he must have had a broken neck when he was shot obviously to make
their incorrect trajectory line up with a shot from the SN?
If they factored in a 23 degree upwards deflection of the bullet from its
original course coming from the SN there would have been no need to show JFK
leaning forward so much.
If they determined that the EOP would be unbelievable for the trajectory that
they calculated (unbelievable enough to alter the x-rays), why did they put the
entry near the EOP in the Rydberg diagram and in the autopsy report?

I'll bet that the straight-line trajectory given in the Rydberg diagram was made
for simplicity's sake (it's listed as a schematic, look up what the meaning).
And can you imagine the howls and catcalls from the CT side of the aisle
had the Rydberg shown a deflection?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
It also makes no sense that anyone would do so on the AP x-ray
but not the lateral view.
Evidently some thought they saw on the lateral what could have been a
fragment (that corresponded with the 6.5 mm thing on the AP) behind JFK's
right eye. Others think they saw something in the cowlick.
"Evidently" is a giant flag procaiming that you are begging the question
here.
Okay, try this. Humes and a few conspiracy theorists said the 6.5 mm thing was
behind his right eye. The Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA "experts" and just about all
the LNers say or said it was in his cowlick.
Note that By the time of the ARRB, Humes said he couldn't recall seeing in on
11-22-63....evidently he had finally woken up to the fact it wasn't even there
on 11-22-63.
Or, after 30+ years, he had just forgotten. You have him forgetting so many other
things, why stop there?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
And it makes no sense at all that Ebersole would
undertake such a provocative and underhanded task in front of an untrusted
audience.
They were all sworn to secrecy.
And to you I guess it makes more sense that he was ordered by someone in
the White House (gee, didn't Burkley have an office there?) to take
measurements from the X-rays for a bust of JFK (using the code name "Aunt
Margret Skirts", for that task) when JFK's body wasn't even in the ground
yet, not to mention at a time (following the autopsy) when the X-rays were
supposed to be secured for the eyes of E. Warren only?
I figure that the "Aunt Margaret's Skirts" bit involved the creation of
the Rydberg diagram.
Oh, yes, now I can see why a code name was used.....thanks. LOL.
Actually, if the idea was to alter the x-ray at Bethesda by someone at
Bethesda, why would anyone need to phone in a code word? Or
advertise that they used one?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Ever notice that those two pencil lines drawn on the
lateral view correspond exactly with the two trajectory lines on the
Rydberg drawing? There would have been no reason to have drawn the lines
at the time of the autopsy, and the correspondance between the pencil
lines and Rydberg's trajectory lines is glaringly conspicuous.
Of course I've seen them. That could have been when "they" confirmed the
near-EOP entry, high exit trajectory didn't seem consistent with a shot from six
floors up. Indeed, extend the diagonal line back, and even with JFK leaning
appx. 26 degrees forward (which he was) that line would still point back in the
direction of the limo's trunk.
Which tells every one exactly what about your particular placement of the
entry?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
As for Custer, it's pretty well established that he was actaully in the
morgue during the autopsy, so he's not certified, 100% full of shit.
However, don't think for a second that the number is below 99%.
Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole taping fragments to
skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?
Custer was talking about x-raying the three skull fragments that arrived
separately from the body, not the AP x-ray, so his statement is as off-
-the-wall for you as it is for anyone else. You need to have him working
on the AP x-ray, and that's just not what he was talking about. BTW, if
you read his deposition, he identifies the mystery object (I trust you
won't object to that term) on the AP view as a bullet fragment! You'd
think that he'd mention it if he knew (or even suspected) that the object
was bogus.
He was talking about taping metal fragments to pieces of skull!
Exactly. You are claiming Ebersole did something very different that
what Custer claims...and does it at a different time. Ergo, Custer is not
your witness, Sherlock. And you still have to get over Custer's credibility
issue. He might as well have just handed Gunn and Horne a copy of
_Best Evidence_ and said, "here's my testimony!"

Oh, and you avoided the point that Custer seemed to recognize the
object as a fragment.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
BTW, are you aware that Mantik was talking about his densitometry work at
least as early as 1994, three years before Custer talked to the ARRB.
Yes, and your point is...?
Your statement, "Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole
taping fragments to skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?"
implies that he said it before anyone else brought up falsification as an
issue. I hope that's what you are getting at, because the statement
makes no particular sense otherwise.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?
Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?
If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
You should already have a good idea by now what I believe it might be, as
much as we've been over it. And, no, I don't think that it's a fragment
that was shaved off on entry.
Do you think it represents an artifact?
How are you on probabilities?
I used to be fairly good at the subject. More than enough to know that
really impobable shit happens all the time. Improbable is not a synonym
for impossible.
Well, Paul Seaton has a masters degree in mathematics and is pretty good at
calculating probabilities and he said the odds on that thing accidentally ending
up in that precise location and that diameter were on the order of 10,000 to
one. I'M SAYING (EXCUSE THE CAPS BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING YOU TO LET THIS
SINK IN OTHERWISE) THE ODDS AGAINST THE SCENARIO I PROPOSE BEING ACCURATE, AS
UNLIKELY AS I AGREE IT SEEMS, ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN 10,000 TO ONE OR, IF
PAUL WAS OFF, WHATEVER THEY ACTUALLY ARE.
Weiss and Ashkenazy calculated that the fourth series of impulses on
the Dictabelt tape had a 95+% chance of being a gunshot from the grassy
knoll. Neither one of us believe it. A calculation is just that, a calculation.
It is not the truth. The problem with determining the probability of an event
is that you have to pick your assumptions carefully. You can't always
expect perfectly random distributions, for instance, and the processes that
you model may not work quite the way you imagine. For so many reasons,
it's wise to treat probability numbers with wise discretion.
Post by John Canal
Truthfully, Sturdivan thinks it's an artifact and says, while my scenario is
possible, coincidences do happen...and says the 6.5 mm thing ending up
accidentally that size and shape and in that particular location is "one Hell of
a coincidence". Ya, right Larry....he worked for the government for some 40
years so I'm not surprised he thinks it was an artifact.
What I can't understand is why you hard-line LNers object to this scenario
because I'm not hardly saying it means that there was an assassination
conspiracy....just well-intended (but perhaps ill-advised) measures taken by
practical individuals.
Exactly what is this "hard-line lone nutter?" These days, I lean towards a
two-shot scenario, so I'm not likely to be in the LN norm.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
What are the odds an artifact could actidently end up being just about the
diameter of the ammo LHO used and the same distance right of midline as
both proposed entry sites and conveniently in a location (vertically) near
a displaced skull fracture (which many thought was an entry wound)?
Better than the odds that Burkley/the autopsists decided to falsify the
x-rays based on information that they did not know
There was probably plenty of time to figure out that Humes' trajectory seemed
problematic...see JFK's lean in CE-388!
Yet they published CE 388 with the problematic lean anyway, and released
an autopsy report placing the entry near the EOP! Trajectory couldn't have
been so big of an issue to them if they went ahead with the EOP entry. Sorry,
but their own productions fundamentally refute your assertions.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
in order to hide the
location of the entry, then turn around and write an autopsy report
specifying the the correct entry, yet let the forged x-rays stand as the
originals without comment or explanation, even when no one would have
faulted them much for the entire charade, and when it would have saved
their professional reputations a great deal of grief. Sounds like a plot
recap for "Soap," doesn't it?
But a lot more likely than that thing ending that diameter and where it
was...accidentally!
Not sure if I would use the term "diameter." To me, the object is shaped
like a fat, distorted comma, and isn't really circular.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
IMO, like the ad says, about the same as you being mauled by a polar bear
and a black bear in the same day.
Actually, I have this friend who's wife is a zookeeper, so that may be
more probable outcome than you might first imagine. Like I said, you never
know about the improbable.
I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
I'm in shock that you missed the joke. Though I do have a friend who's wife
really is a zookeeper.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
I'll leave the rest, since it strays so far away from Custer and his
fabulosities, other than to mention yet again that the only support you
can muster for your interpretation of F8 comes from a mechanical engineer,
a chiropractor, a Poly Sci professor, and a professional John Fiorentino,
with nary an anthropoligst, anatomist, etc among them.
Serious question. Are you 100% certain the entry was not near the EOP...if it
wasn't and it was in the cowlick, I agree wholeheartedly that the scenario I
propose would be ridiculous.
John, I've gone over the autopsy evidence as much as anyone over the years.
I finally realized that the triangles at the rear of the skull in Boswell's little
schematic connect to a line off to the left of the rear of the skull in a way
that corresponds blindingly well to the radiating fractures seen in the AP x-ray...
in fact, I've yet to see a better explanation for those particular feature.
There are the radiating fractures in the AP x-ray. There is the BOH photo.
There are the dozen of so medical and anthropological professionals who
have seen the autopsy materials and place the entry well above the EOP,
as well as the complete lack of any similar medical or anthropological
who place the entry at the EOP.

Opposed to all of that is the lack of any expected anatomic feature in F8,
were the entry near the cowlick. There is the aforementioned lack of
professional opinion in favor of a lower entry. There is the curious (non-)
measurement of the wound's location, and Finck's very curious decision
not to repeat said non-measurement in either of his letters to Blumberg.

Given the evidence I have, the only possible conclusion I can come up
with is that he entry is indeed well above the EOP, and inch or so below
the rear margin of the defect. You have had a dozen years or so to
change this. In that time, your argument still rests almost entirely on your
interpretation of F8. The only thing that has changed is the cancer-like
growth of an increasingly ponderous superstructure of convolution
and conspiracy theory ---what you have erected to try and fill the holes
in your assertions.

But am I 100% sure? Not until the body is exhumed, but I'm not holding
my breath. Given what I have, though, I see good reason to believe a
higher entry, and no good reason to believe in a lower one.
Post by John Canal
So, please take one more look at this copy of F8.....
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
......and remember these things: 1) it's only a multi-generation copy of F8, 2)
Zimmerman and Sturdivan both said the originals were extremely clear, 3) they
examined them using a stereoscopic viewer, 4) all the individuals who saw the
body and described where they saw the entry on his head said it was near the
EOP, 5) the near EOP entry is consistent with the cluster of tiny opacities seen
near the EOP on the lateral, 6) the near-EOP entry is consistent with the
longitudinal laceration through the brain described in the Supplementry Autopsy
Report, 7) before Zimmerman went to the NA he was uncertain about whether the
entry was in the cowlick or near the EOP, 8) Sturdivan had once testified the
entry was in the cowlick, and 9) four individuals replicated F8 with model,
computer generated 3D, and human skulls and determined the circular defect seen
in F8 was near the EOP.
Again, are you 100% certain the entry was not near the EOP?
FWIW, I'm 100% certain it was near the EOP.
Post by Mitch Todd
Now time to try on that bear-proof suit.
How about trying on your logic-hat?
John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Again we are arguing about something that can be easily settled.....IOW,
if I'm correct and F8 shows the entry near the EOP and all that we need is
for a some credible experts (sponsored by NATGEO?), who weren't friends or
associates of Fisher (of course, as far as credibility goes, you threw
Sturdivan and Zimmerman under the bus) to examine that photo and end all
this academic chatter.
Note that (evidently without thinking about the implications of what he
said) when I posted a copy of F8 with the "entry" enlarged, McAdams said
that the defect that I think is the entry is deep inside JFK's cranial
cavity. Then he quickly said that that defect is not the entry.
But when Zimmerman said the defect I said was the entry was indeed the
entry (remember, he and Sturdivan used a stereoscopic viewer to examine
the originals which they both said were quite clear) he [.john] had little
to say.
Even Fiorentino, I believe trying to cover for .john, said that the defect
I said was the entry may or may not be the real entry....to which I wonder
if they think JFK had some circular-like birth defect in his skull down
near his EOP...as seen in F8?
And we won't even bring up the fact that Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and the
FPP's Dr. Joe Davis saw tiny opcities clustered near the EOP on the
lateral (you can't see them on the copies that the HSCA published, with
the EOP area cropped) which are obiously the bone that was beveled out
from the inside skull table around the near-EOP entry.
And we aslo don't need to bring up the fact that the longitudinal
laceration that went completely though the brain entered in the occipital
lobe and any bullet entering in his cowlick would have entered in the
parietal lobe.
It's just a matter of time before the truth comes out...like I said when
F8 is properly examined...when we'll know who deserves pity.
I probably won't be around to see that, but I'll bet you will.
Just remember, I told you so.
--
John Canal
--
John Canal
John Canal
2012-02-03 21:11:02 UTC
Permalink
<TOP POST>

I just spent two hours replying to this and a power failure wiped out what
I had written. Some other time Mitch, I'm burned out right now on this.

In the meantime look at this:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
Loading Image...

There's the evidence that supports my claims. The only thing is that you
won't acknowledge it does unless it's examined by a team of experts that
you guys deem credible. Obviously the likes of Zimmerman and Sturdivan
won't do because you've lumped them in with other "alleged" unqualified or
grossly mistaken individuals like HB&F and the PH docs.

And of course you have no problem with the fact that many of the
Rockefeller/HSCA experts were Fisher's associates, right? (note that the
first job Spitz, a member of both those panels, had here in the states was
under Fisher).

Again, can you honestly tell me you're 100% certain that the circular
defect in the links below is not near the EOP?

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

Be honest...and you don't need to be a forensic expert to see the obvious.
You just need to know the shape of a typical skull and to know that it's
not normal for there to be a small circular defect in ones' rear skull.

John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Also, Custer said that he saw Ebersole taping bullet fragments to skull
pieces after the autopsy.
Custer said a number of interesting things. He claimed that a "king sized"
bullet fragment, 3-4 cm long, fell out during the x-raying and that "a
chief" told him that the body had been delivered from Walter Reed. He also
told the ARRB that Floyd Reibe took the autopsy photos, and William Pitzer
was in the morgue filming the nights activites. He was a gorgeous fountain
spewing all kinds of crap. If you believe a damn thing that the man said,
then I can only pity you.
Spare me your pity.
So everything he ever said about the assassination was crap, eh?
Even things that make sense?
Believe me, you have my pity.
Not needed or wanted.
Post by Mitch Todd
It makes no sense for Ebersole (or anyone for that matter) would try to
add an ersatz fragment --really, what did they think they would
accomplish?
You're not thinking. What if they (Burkley?) noted that a low near-EOP
entry and a high exit didn't "seem" to line up with a shot from six floors
up? What if those same individuals thought adding a fragment up high might
just make people think that their added "fragment" sheared off a bullet
entering near it and that Humes et al simply made a mistake with their
near EOP ENTRY?
Ridiculous? If that's what you think, then why did Baden say that fragment
was evidence of a high hit?
It's obvious "they" were worried about that reported low hit being
consistent with a shot from the SN. Do you think such thoughts were
ridiculous? If you believe they were you're wrong...again. Heck even
McAdams (and many others) has said over and over here that if the bullet
entered near the EOP then the shooter must have fired from the trunk
(something like that). Also, even Humes knew there was a trajectory
problem...which is why he had Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50
degrees in CE-388 when Z-312 shows he was actually leaning forward about
half that.....if you're having trouble understandng my point, the extra
lean made an incorrect "straight through EOP entry and high exit
trajcetory" at least somewhat consistent with a shot from the SN.
The problem was that they assumed the bullet went straight through his
head.....they didn't consider a deflection as they should have, especially
after seeing the deformed nose (CE-567) of the bullet.
Also, they should have realized the bullet deflected up because if it
didn't it would have blasted the heck out of the cerebellum...and the
cerebellum showed no such damage.
Oh, but I *am* thinking.... that your entire argument is built on "what if
Burkley..." Not a very safe place to play, I'm afraid.
It comes down to whose argument is the most unlikely one.
It comes down to the argument is the right one, no matter how unlikely it may
seem. Like I've said, unlikely things --very unlikely things-- happen all the time,
leaving their more probable counterparts sitting dejected like a jilted prom
date.
Post by John Canal
Yours: An artifact [accidentally?] ends up on the AP film being almost perfectly
round, 6.5 mm in diameter, 2.5 cm right of midline, and 1.0 cm below a depressed
fracture which some experts claimed was the entry. Moreover, as strange as that
opacity was, none of the autopsists recall either seeing and/or recovering it on
11-22-63.
And the other part of your theory that is a bit incredulous to many, but
evidently not so unusual to you, is that Ebersole was ordered by the White
House, after the assassination, to take measurements from the X-rays (for a bust
of JFK), with the x-rays supposedly being "off-limits" to anyone except Earl
Warren....and his task being assigned a code name!
That all washes with you?
Strange occurrences having to do with a controversy don't bother you, do they?
My scenario?....well you know it....and yes mine does seem unlikely, but not
nearly (that's a gross understatement) as unlikely as yours.
You didn't bother youself with the simple task of reading my post before
replying, now did you?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
As I've already pointed out, you are assuming that Burkley would have
known enough about the mechanics of the assassination --the relative
locations of the shooter, the victims, the exact postures of the victims,
etc-- to have decided what would have been an acceptable trajectory.
While based on Custer's statements I did say the 6.5 mm thing was added shortly
after the assassination, it's actually unclear just when it was added. Ebersole
said he took the measurements from the X-rays within about a month after the
assassination.....that would have been more than enough time for Burkley and
others to do their rough calculations that resulted in them agreeing the
near-EOP entry and high exit didn't seem consistent with a shot from six floors
up....and then to take appropriate action.
Post by Mitch Todd
You
have presented no evidence whatsoever that he would have known these
things at any time on Nov 22. You merely assert it and hope the rest of us
just go along.
Again, it's unclear exactly when it was added, and I'm saying that scenario is
the least unlikely one (vs. yours).
If I remember correctly, you have Burkley directing the autopsists *at*
the autopsy to falsify the BOH photo by hiking up the scalp at the rear
of the head. That puts Burkley's putative decision regarding possible
trajectories on the night of Nov 22.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Burkley had no first hand experience to guide him: he was
so far back in the motorcade that he arrived at Parkland several minutes
after the President, didn't see the assassination, and never even mentions
hearing gunshots in the few statemtents he's given. He wouldn't have known
the TSBD from the Adam Hats building.
Again, it may have been days or even weeks (but, based on Ebersole's testimony,
I believe less than about a month) after the assassination that the thing was
added.
as above.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
BTW, the autopsists were certainly aware that bullets deflect within the
body. That's why they had the entire cadaver (other than the hands and
feet) x-rayed. As one of them noted, bullets can do "funny things" in the
body.
Oh so that explains nicely why their trajectory arrow goes straight through his
head in CE-388 and why they've leaned JFK so far forward in that drawing it
looked like he must have had a broken neck when he was shot obviously to make
their incorrect trajectory line up with a shot from the SN?
If they factored in a 23 degree upwards deflection of the bullet from its
original course coming from the SN there would have been no need to show JFK
leaning forward so much.
If they determined that the EOP would be unbelievable for the trajectory that
they calculated (unbelievable enough to alter the x-rays), why did they put the
entry near the EOP in the Rydberg diagram and in the autopsy report?
I'll bet that the straight-line trajectory given in the Rydberg diagram was made
for simplicity's sake (it's listed as a schematic, look up what the meaning).
And can you imagine the howls and catcalls from the CT side of the aisle
had the Rydberg shown a deflection?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
It also makes no sense that anyone would do so on the AP x-ray
but not the lateral view.
Evidently some thought they saw on the lateral what could have been a
fragment (that corresponded with the 6.5 mm thing on the AP) behind JFK's
right eye. Others think they saw something in the cowlick.
"Evidently" is a giant flag procaiming that you are begging the question
here.
Okay, try this. Humes and a few conspiracy theorists said the 6.5 mm thing was
behind his right eye. The Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA "experts" and just about all
the LNers say or said it was in his cowlick.
Note that By the time of the ARRB, Humes said he couldn't recall seeing in on
11-22-63....evidently he had finally woken up to the fact it wasn't even there
on 11-22-63.
Or, after 30+ years, he had just forgotten. You have him forgetting so many other
things, why stop there?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
And it makes no sense at all that Ebersole would
undertake such a provocative and underhanded task in front of an untrusted
audience.
They were all sworn to secrecy.
And to you I guess it makes more sense that he was ordered by someone in
the White House (gee, didn't Burkley have an office there?) to take
measurements from the X-rays for a bust of JFK (using the code name "Aunt
Margret Skirts", for that task) when JFK's body wasn't even in the ground
yet, not to mention at a time (following the autopsy) when the X-rays were
supposed to be secured for the eyes of E. Warren only?
I figure that the "Aunt Margaret's Skirts" bit involved the creation of
the Rydberg diagram.
Oh, yes, now I can see why a code name was used.....thanks. LOL.
Actually, if the idea was to alter the x-ray at Bethesda by someone at
Bethesda, why would anyone need to phone in a code word? Or
advertise that they used one?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Ever notice that those two pencil lines drawn on the
lateral view correspond exactly with the two trajectory lines on the
Rydberg drawing? There would have been no reason to have drawn the lines
at the time of the autopsy, and the correspondance between the pencil
lines and Rydberg's trajectory lines is glaringly conspicuous.
Of course I've seen them. That could have been when "they" confirmed the
near-EOP entry, high exit trajectory didn't seem consistent with a shot from six
floors up. Indeed, extend the diagonal line back, and even with JFK leaning
appx. 26 degrees forward (which he was) that line would still point back in the
direction of the limo's trunk.
Which tells every one exactly what about your particular placement of the
entry?
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
As for Custer, it's pretty well established that he was actaully in the
morgue during the autopsy, so he's not certified, 100% full of shit.
However, don't think for a second that the number is below 99%.
Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole taping fragments to
skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?
Custer was talking about x-raying the three skull fragments that arrived
separately from the body, not the AP x-ray, so his statement is as off-
-the-wall for you as it is for anyone else. You need to have him working
on the AP x-ray, and that's just not what he was talking about. BTW, if
you read his deposition, he identifies the mystery object (I trust you
won't object to that term) on the AP view as a bullet fragment! You'd
think that he'd mention it if he knew (or even suspected) that the object
was bogus.
He was talking about taping metal fragments to pieces of skull!
Exactly. You are claiming Ebersole did something very different that
what Custer claims...and does it at a different time. Ergo, Custer is not
your witness, Sherlock. And you still have to get over Custer's credibility
issue. He might as well have just handed Gunn and Horne a copy of
_Best Evidence_ and said, "here's my testimony!"
Oh, and you avoided the point that Custer seemed to recognize the
object as a fragment.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
BTW, are you aware that Mantik was talking about his densitometry work at
least as early as 1994, three years before Custer talked to the ARRB.
Yes, and your point is...?
Your statement, "Pretty off the wall claim he made up about Ebersole
taping fragments to skull pieces...if he really made it up, docha think?"
implies that he said it before anyone else brought up falsification as an
issue. I hope that's what you are getting at, because the statement
makes no particular sense otherwise.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Do you really think the 6.5 mm thing was a real bullet fragment?
Do you think it sheered off a bullet that hit him in the BOH?
If you answered yes to either of those, it's you that should be pitied.
You should already have a good idea by now what I believe it might be, as
much as we've been over it. And, no, I don't think that it's a fragment
that was shaved off on entry.
Do you think it represents an artifact?
How are you on probabilities?
I used to be fairly good at the subject. More than enough to know that
really impobable shit happens all the time. Improbable is not a synonym
for impossible.
Well, Paul Seaton has a masters degree in mathematics and is pretty good at
calculating probabilities and he said the odds on that thing accidentally ending
up in that precise location and that diameter were on the order of 10,000 to
one. I'M SAYING (EXCUSE THE CAPS BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING YOU TO LET THIS
SINK IN OTHERWISE) THE ODDS AGAINST THE SCENARIO I PROPOSE BEING ACCURATE, AS
UNLIKELY AS I AGREE IT SEEMS, ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN 10,000 TO ONE OR, IF
PAUL WAS OFF, WHATEVER THEY ACTUALLY ARE.
Weiss and Ashkenazy calculated that the fourth series of impulses on
the Dictabelt tape had a 95+% chance of being a gunshot from the grassy
knoll. Neither one of us believe it. A calculation is just that, a calculation.
It is not the truth. The problem with determining the probability of an event
is that you have to pick your assumptions carefully. You can't always
expect perfectly random distributions, for instance, and the processes that
you model may not work quite the way you imagine. For so many reasons,
it's wise to treat probability numbers with wise discretion.
Post by John Canal
Truthfully, Sturdivan thinks it's an artifact and says, while my scenario is
possible, coincidences do happen...and says the 6.5 mm thing ending up
accidentally that size and shape and in that particular location is "one Hell of
a coincidence". Ya, right Larry....he worked for the government for some 40
years so I'm not surprised he thinks it was an artifact.
What I can't understand is why you hard-line LNers object to this scenario
because I'm not hardly saying it means that there was an assassination
conspiracy....just well-intended (but perhaps ill-advised) measures taken by
practical individuals.
Exactly what is this "hard-line lone nutter?" These days, I lean towards a
two-shot scenario, so I'm not likely to be in the LN norm.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
What are the odds an artifact could actidently end up being just about the
diameter of the ammo LHO used and the same distance right of midline as
both proposed entry sites and conveniently in a location (vertically) near
a displaced skull fracture (which many thought was an entry wound)?
Better than the odds that Burkley/the autopsists decided to falsify the
x-rays based on information that they did not know
There was probably plenty of time to figure out that Humes' trajectory seemed
problematic...see JFK's lean in CE-388!
Yet they published CE 388 with the problematic lean anyway, and released
an autopsy report placing the entry near the EOP! Trajectory couldn't have
been so big of an issue to them if they went ahead with the EOP entry. Sorry,
but their own productions fundamentally refute your assertions.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
in order to hide the
location of the entry, then turn around and write an autopsy report
specifying the the correct entry, yet let the forged x-rays stand as the
originals without comment or explanation, even when no one would have
faulted them much for the entire charade, and when it would have saved
their professional reputations a great deal of grief. Sounds like a plot
recap for "Soap," doesn't it?
But a lot more likely than that thing ending that diameter and where it
was...accidentally!
Not sure if I would use the term "diameter." To me, the object is shaped
like a fat, distorted comma, and isn't really circular.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
IMO, like the ad says, about the same as you being mauled by a polar bear
and a black bear in the same day.
Actually, I have this friend who's wife is a zookeeper, so that may be
more probable outcome than you might first imagine. Like I said, you never
know about the improbable.
I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
I'm in shock that you missed the joke. Though I do have a friend who's wife
really is a zookeeper.
Post by John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
I'll leave the rest, since it strays so far away from Custer and his
fabulosities, other than to mention yet again that the only support you
can muster for your interpretation of F8 comes from a mechanical engineer,
a chiropractor, a Poly Sci professor, and a professional John Fiorentino,
with nary an anthropoligst, anatomist, etc among them.
Serious question. Are you 100% certain the entry was not near the EOP...if it
wasn't and it was in the cowlick, I agree wholeheartedly that the scenario I
propose would be ridiculous.
John, I've gone over the autopsy evidence as much as anyone over the years.
I finally realized that the triangles at the rear of the skull in Boswell's little
schematic connect to a line off to the left of the rear of the skull in a way
that corresponds blindingly well to the radiating fractures seen in the AP x-ray...
in fact, I've yet to see a better explanation for those particular feature.
There are the radiating fractures in the AP x-ray. There is the BOH photo.
There are the dozen of so medical and anthropological professionals who
have seen the autopsy materials and place the entry well above the EOP,
as well as the complete lack of any similar medical or anthropological
who place the entry at the EOP.
Opposed to all of that is the lack of any expected anatomic feature in F8,
were the entry near the cowlick. There is the aforementioned lack of
professional opinion in favor of a lower entry. There is the curious (non-)
measurement of the wound's location, and Finck's very curious decision
not to repeat said non-measurement in either of his letters to Blumberg.
Given the evidence I have, the only possible conclusion I can come up
with is that he entry is indeed well above the EOP, and inch or so below
the rear margin of the defect. You have had a dozen years or so to
change this. In that time, your argument still rests almost entirely on your
interpretation of F8. The only thing that has changed is the cancer-like
growth of an increasingly ponderous superstructure of convolution
and conspiracy theory ---what you have erected to try and fill the holes
in your assertions.
But am I 100% sure? Not until the body is exhumed, but I'm not holding
my breath. Given what I have, though, I see good reason to believe a
higher entry, and no good reason to believe in a lower one.
Post by John Canal
So, please take one more look at this copy of F8.....
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
......and remember these things: 1) it's only a multi-generation copy of F8, 2)
Zimmerman and Sturdivan both said the originals were extremely clear, 3) they
examined them using a stereoscopic viewer, 4) all the individuals who saw the
body and described where they saw the entry on his head said it was near the
EOP, 5) the near EOP entry is consistent with the cluster of tiny opacities seen
near the EOP on the lateral, 6) the near-EOP entry is consistent with the
longitudinal laceration through the brain described in the Supplementry Autopsy
Report, 7) before Zimmerman went to the NA he was uncertain about whether the
entry was in the cowlick or near the EOP, 8) Sturdivan had once testified the
entry was in the cowlick, and 9) four individuals replicated F8 with model,
computer generated 3D, and human skulls and determined the circular defect seen
in F8 was near the EOP.
Again, are you 100% certain the entry was not near the EOP?
FWIW, I'm 100% certain it was near the EOP.
Post by Mitch Todd
Now time to try on that bear-proof suit.
How about trying on your logic-hat?
John Canal
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John Canal
Again we are arguing about something that can be easily settled.....IOW,
if I'm correct and F8 shows the entry near the EOP and all that we need is
for a some credible experts (sponsored by NATGEO?), who weren't friends or
associates of Fisher (of course, as far as credibility goes, you threw
Sturdivan and Zimmerman under the bus) to examine that photo and end all
this academic chatter.
Note that (evidently without thinking about the implications of what he
said) when I posted a copy of F8 with the "entry" enlarged, McAdams said
that the defect that I think is the entry is deep inside JFK's cranial
cavity. Then he quickly said that that defect is not the entry.
But when Zimmerman said the defect I said was the entry was indeed the
entry (remember, he and Sturdivan used a stereoscopic viewer to examine
the originals which they both said were quite clear) he [.john] had little
to say.
Even Fiorentino, I believe trying to cover for .john, said that the defect
I said was the entry may or may not be the real entry....to which I wonder
if they think JFK had some circular-like birth defect in his skull down
near his EOP...as seen in F8?
And we won't even bring up the fact that Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and the
FPP's Dr. Joe Davis saw tiny opcities clustered near the EOP on the
lateral (you can't see them on the copies that the HSCA published, with
the EOP area cropped) which are obiously the bone that was beveled out
from the inside skull table around the near-EOP entry.
And we aslo don't need to bring up the fact that the longitudinal
laceration that went completely though the brain entered in the occipital
lobe and any bullet entering in his cowlick would have entered in the
parietal lobe.
It's just a matter of time before the truth comes out...like I said when
F8 is properly examined...when we'll know who deserves pity.
I probably won't be around to see that, but I'll bet you will.
Just remember, I told you so.
--
John Canal
--
John Canal
--
John Canal
***@webtv.net
Loading...