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

"Anthony Marsh" <anthony_marsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:UrWdnftfycCIHIXVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> tomnln wrote:
>> James;
>>
>> Please tell me exactly WHEN (date) the Warren Commission gave 
>> "Conception" to the SBT?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> Late April 1964.


I already knew that Marsh;

I was asking James.
I wanted to see how much HE knew.

The WCR said it was discovered the night of the autopsy after
Humes spoke to Dr. Perry in Dallas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



>> "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
>>
>