Re: JFK, Addison's Disease, Iatrogenic Cu****ng's Syndrome, and the

tomnln wrote:
> James;
> 
> Please tell me exactly WHEN (date) the Warren Commission gave 
> "Conception" to the SBT?
> 
> 

Late April 1964.

> 
> 
> 
> "Jas" <jstell1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:4816a777$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Hmmmmmmm. Looks like you and I are talking about 2 different things.
>>
>> The title of this thread is "JFK, Addison's Disease, Iatrogenic 
>> Cu****ng's Syndrome, and the SBT" having to do with the curvature of 
>> Kennedy's upper back. So...
>>
>> ...What in hell's half acre are you talking about, my friend?
>>
>> Herbert wrote: "Did you honestly mistake an incidence angle for a 
>> downward trajectory angle or did you make this up?"
>>
>> Number one, I don't like being patronized. You've done this twice now. 
>> Number two, no, we're not talking about incidence angle, *you're* 
>> talking about incidence angle. I was talking about Kennedy's 
>> osteo****osis and the way it helps to explain the downward trajectory 
>> through his neck.
>>
>> It started, I believe, by you declaring the Warren Commission's SBT 
>> "dead before conception," which is not true.
>>
>> Do me a favor. In your next post, try staying on topic, and speaking 
>> English.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> "Herbert Blenner" <a1eah71@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:a7313eb0-6c42-45fe-b387-e8e552a35086@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Apr 27, 9:25 pm, "Jas" <jste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Herbert wrote: "These stumbling blocks are sufficient to declare the
SBT
>>>
>>> dead before conception."
>>>
>>> Quite a leap of faith to declare this, don't you think Herbert?
>>>
>>> Herbert also wrote: "To make matters worse for the SBT, the FPP has 
>>> the 45
>>>
>>> degree angle of incidence lying in a plane perpendicular to the plane
>>> do***ented by the Bethseda. So which, SBT do you defend?"
>>>
>>> Herbert, obviously, and as you know but asked anyway I guess to prove
a
>>> point :>) -- I defend the official Warren Commission findings.
>>>
>>> I would like to see the do***entation for this alleged 45 degree 
>>> downward
>>> trajectory. Please post links or referral to do***ents if you can.
>>
>> You have quoted my use the "45 degree angle of incidence" so explain 
>> how you arrived at a "45 degree downward trajectory."
>>
>>>
>>> Has it occurred to you that if, in fact, it is a 45 degree downward 
>>> angle,
>>> which it isn't, there exists no place above the limo in Dealey at the 
>>> time
>>> of the shot to facilitate any deflection and/or direct shot to cause
the
>>> bullet to enter at a 45 degree angle? In other words, what surface
would
>>> you have your deflected bullet deflecting off of, might I ask?
>>>
>>> Use your eyes and your common sense (there's that pesky phrase again
--
>>> "common sense"). It doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure this
out.
>>
>> You should heed your own advice. If I meant a 45 degree downward angle 
>> then I would not have called it an incidence angle. As for the 
>> forensic experts they recognize the relation****p between the 
>> dimensions of an elliptical bullet hole and the incidence angle of the 
>> striking bullet. For example see
>>
>>
http://www.jbpub.com/samples/0763735299/Girard%20Sample%20Chapter%202.pdf
>>
>> On page 45 of "Investigating and Processing Physical Evidence" Girard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>>
>> "Most bullet holes are elliptically shaped, so trigonometry can be 
>> used to estimate the angle of entry. The following equation can be 
>> used to estimate the angle of entry" [theta].
>>
>> cos [theta] = Shorter dimension / Longer dimension
>>
>> Theta is the incidence angle between the trajectory of the impinging 
>> bullet and the perpendicular to the entry site. Obviously the 
>> incidence angle differs from the trajectory angle of the bullet 
>> whenever the perpendicular to the wound is not parallel to level
ground.
>>
>>>
>>> If, for example, the shot fired from the easternmost sixth floor 
>>> window of
>>> the TSBD at around Z 223 deflected off a branch of the Texas live oak 
>>> that
>>> was situated in front of the building, it wouldn't have entered 
>>> Kennedy at
>>> any 45 degree angle in his upper back where it actually did. It would 
>>> have
>>> more than likely deflected off to one side or another, or somewhere
>>> underneath the window where Oswald was, possibly striking one of the
>>> spectators in Dealey (or motorcade members) that were situated closer
to
>>> the TSBD, thus facilitating a possible 45 degree angle from the two
>>> positions between shooter and victim. Or, it would have broken up and 
>>> sent
>>> some fragments in any direction, take your pick.
>>
>> The Clark Panel described the abrasion surrounding the bullet hole in 
>> President Kennedy's back as a 7 mm by 10 mm ellipse. These dimensions 
>> were confirmed by the FPP. Using the above relation****p gives cos 
>> [theta] = 7 mm / 10 mm so the angle theta becomes 46 degree.  Likewise 
>> correcting the 4 mm by 7 mm dimensions of the oval bullet hole for 
>> elastic relaxation and swell of tissues gives an incidence angle of 42 
>> degree.
>>
>>>
>>> Unless, of course, you're maintaining there was a shot from the more
>>> western side of the 6th floor (or 5th, or 4th floor) something of
which
>>> there is absolutely no evidence of occurring. Unless you want to start
>>> manufacturing evidence. Then, we just enter the conspiracist's
>>> merry-go-round of making things up, yada yada, to sup****t their
personal
>>> theories.
>>>
>>> James
>>
>> Did you honestly mistake an incidence angle for a downward trajectory 
>> angle or did you make this up?
>>
>> Herbert 
>