In article
<84e7ea6a-1127-4d55-8a6f-fe4e0fbcf8e4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On May 15, 1:07=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
<dd98c165-b644-43e3-b35c-3e570f4c9...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >It has been re****ted that you have posted without signaling. =3D97
Only
>> >kidding.
>>
>> >You have asked me to cite the description of the entry hole in
>> >President Kennedy's skull as elliptical.
>>
>>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/...
>> >.htm
>>
>> >See the lower ****tion of the second column.
>>
>> <g> Herbert, come on please. So Humes says nothing about an eliptical
>> entry wound in the skull in the autopsy re****t, his WC testimony, his
HSCA=
>
>> testimony nor his ARRB testimony, but drops this revelation on Dennis
>> Breo....and you buy the later?
>
>Commander Humes said that the margin of the wound in the skull were
>similar in all aspects to the margin surrounding the oval/elliptical
wound
>in the back.
>
>Source: WC testimony of Cmdr. James J. Humes
>
>Commander HUMES - . . . This missile, to the best of our ability to
>ascertain, struck no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as
>it traversed the President's body. But it was a sharply delineated wound.
>It was quite regular in its outline. It measured, as I mentioned, 7 by 4
>mm. Its margins were similar in all respects when viewed with the ****d
>eye to the wound in the skull, which we feel incontrovertibly was a wound
>of entrance. End of source.
>
>So tell us, John, does the category of all aspects include the particular
>aspect of an oval/elliptical perimeter?
I would say that all aspects would include whether the hole was eliptical
or not, yes. But he did say "similar" and he could have said the wound in
the skull was 15 x 6 mm, but he didn't...he just said the wound in the
scalp was 15 x 6...and said the same thing in the autopsy re****t.
Here's the thing: the best evidence of a circular hole is F8...again, do
you want me to post the enhanced blow-up of the bottom half of the
entry....if you think and tell me it looks like half an eliptical defect,
then I agree the hole in the skull might have been eliptical...not that it
makes any difference as far as where the bullet was fired from, where it
entered the skull, where the two largest fragments exited, and where those
two fragments ended up....your "striking angles" aside.
>> Well, if you want to go by the JAMA article and a stale old statement
that=
>
>> relied on nearly a 30 year old memory, can I trump that mentioning
this:
>> The FPP using stereoscopic visualization saw (in F8) a beveled
>> semicircular defect.....stop. I'll repeat, "semicircular"....hmmmm,
>> Herbert doen't semicircular mean half of a circle?
>
>The photographs would show the proper surface shape of the bevel only
when
>the line of sight of the camera is parallel to the axis of the bevel.
The camera LOS is nearly straight on to the entry...and you can see the
hole was not eliptical. The FPP used stereoscopic visualization to
determine it was SEMI-CIRCULAR...NOT SEMI-ELIPTICAL.
>As a
>matter of fact the graphics that I have posted in connection with "My
>boring experiment" show this effect. When the line of sight is
>perpendicular to the surface of the wood the bored hole has an elliptical
>perimeter.
I like the stereoscopic visualization of the originals as proof regarding
the shape of the hole, over your demonstrations, no disrespect intended to
your scientifc accomplishments intended, of course.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/surfacehole.jpg
>
>Alternately viewing the wood with the line of sight parallel to the axis
>of the bored hole reveals a circular perimeter on the surface and of
>course we see the through the hole.
I wonder why didn't those forensic pathologists think of trying that
experiment...ya think they didn't need to in order to see the shape of the
defect in the skull?
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/bulkhole.jpg
>
>Now look at the autopsy photograph of the scalp wound. The picture shows
>an elliptical wound with its shallower ****tion farther from the top of
the
>head. Despite the thinness of the scalp and skull we do not see a through
>hole.
Do you mean a through hole through the scalp or through the skull too?
If the later, Herbert, where have you been? The wound in the scalp was
photographed undoubtedly after some BOH reconstruction was done, but
certainly after the scalp was reflected, pieces of rear skull removed (or
allowed to come out), the brain removed, and the scalp held back up...with
who knows what degree of concern for where it was origially. And if you
don't that, the dead give away is the fact that the entry was accepted by
all the forensic pathologiss to be one inch right of midline and you can
see, I'm sure that the photos of the wound in the scalp is midline t best,
and probably a little left of midline. Bottom line Herbert, is that
there's no chance in Hades that the hole in the scalp was over the entry
defect in the skull...and, as a matter of fact, the top halp of the entry
was surely on the table in a piece of the skull that came out earlier when
the photo of the scalp wound was taken.
>Further the FPP noted a suggestion of undermining of tissues on
>****tions of the wound closer to the head. These features are overwhelming
>strong evidence of the tangential entry by the bullet.
Well, it's obvious that the bullet was on a downward path of roughly -16
deg (rel. to horiz) when it nose touched the outer table of the skull, but
by the time that deformed nose cleared the inner table of the skull it was
on a path of roughly +4 degrees. If you want to say that constitutes a
tangential stike, I agree.
>> Also, I don't recall Finck saying anything about an eliptical skull
entry
>> in his letter to Bloomberg or during either his Shaw Trial test. or
HSCA
>> deposition...do you?
>
>I don't recall Finck using any adjective in his WC or HSCA testimonies to
>describe the shape of any hole or wound of entry. Perhaps you can quote
>Finck to offset the appearance of grasping for straws.
I simply think that if the hole in the skull was eliptical, and that meant
something as far as the forensic examination went, he would have said it
was
eliptical...don't you?
>> One more thing---if you want visual evidence do I need to show you the
>> enhanced blow-up of the entry in F8 to sup****t, if not prove, the
>> conclusion the entry was circular? All that I did to enhance the
blow-up
>> was to add a little contrast and brightness? Do you want to look at it
>> yourself? If so, I'll post it again. Let me know.
I'll take that as a "NO"...I wonder why?
>I suggest that you draw the trajectory of the head shot and show the
>angles of incidence of the bullet at the entry and exit sites. I find
that
>curvature of the skull above the frontal hairline prohibits anything but
a
>highly tangential exit by a bullet that entered the rear of the head.
I have posted graphics, ad nausem, showing the trjectory of the bullet.
That said, I have asked you before to post a graphic showing the
trajectory of the head shot/s as you percieved they were, and you have
never done that per my request. If they are on your website, spare me the
trouble of finding it and please simply post it...will you do that?
>So post F8 again, John, so that everyone may see the angle made by the
>camera's line of sight with the perpendicular to the skull at the wound
>sites. I am dusting off my protractor to measure the logical consistency
>of various aspects of the medical evidence.
I suggest you put away your protractor and sarcasm and just tell me if you
think the hole looks even close to being eliptical.
I can't do it from this webtv, so I'll post it just for you from my PC
when I finish this.
John Canal
|
