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

tomnln wrote:
> 
> "Jas" <jstell1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:4818c525@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> tomnln wrote: "James;
>>
>> Please tell me exactly WHEN (date) the Warren Commission gave 
>> "Conception" to the SBT?"
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> James
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't the WCR say it was discovered Friday night after Humes called 
> Dallas & spoke to Dr. Perry?
> 

You are confusing issues. Humes didn't call Perry until Saturday 
morning. And the existence of the throat wound had nothing to do with 
formulating a SBT. As late as mid-April 1964 Humes was arguing the three 
shots three hit scenario.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> "tomnln" <tomnln@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:ckIRj.5034$1M1.1749@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> James;
>>>
>>> Please tell me exactly WHEN (date) the Warren Commission gave 
>>> "Conception" to the SBT?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "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
>>>
>>
>>
>