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

SEE>>>   http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm

There was NO SBT until April of 1964.






"tomnln" <tomnln@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:RUvTj.1597$tM1.1425@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> No response Jas???
>
>
>
> "tomnln" <tomnln@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:8%aSj.59124$QC.49591@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>