On May 16, 11:53=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<84e7ea6a-1127-4d55-8a6f-fe4e0fbcf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
> >On May 15, 1:07=3DA0am, 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. =3D3D97
O=
nly
> >> >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
H=
SCA=3D
>
> >> 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
woun=
d
> >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.
Humes could not have said the wound in the skull was x by y since beveling
caused the shape of the hole in the bulk of the bone to deviate from a
simple cylinder. The shape would have consisted of a cylindrical ****tion
attached to a conical part. However, the shape of the hole in the skull is
not the point of contention. Instead the shapes of the perimeters of the
holes on the inner and outer surfaces of the skull when viewed
perpendicularly to these surfaces are paramount to forensic analysis.
>
> 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.
>
F8 does not present the whole picture of the transiting head shot.
According to the HSCA , the bullet exited the right front side of the head
and re****tedly made a neat bevel on the outer table of the skull that had
a reasonably circular perimeter. This situation requires a bullet exiting
the skull close to a right angle to the surface. Difficulties arise
because the direction of the perpendicular to the exit site is nearly at a
right angle to the perpendicular at the entry hole. So unless the bullet
made a right angle turn during transit the pair of bevels at the inner
table of the entry site and the outer table of the exit location cannot
stand together as a true pair.
I suggest you correct the following graphic of the HSCA version of the
head shot and relocate the entry and exit sites so that the trajectory
that crosses them at close to right angles to the surface of the skull.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/jfkf66.jpg
> >> Well, if you want to go by the JAMA article and a stale old statement
t=
hat=3D
>
> >> 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
whe=
n
> >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.
Stereoscopic visualization produces a virtual three-dimensional view that
is irrelevant to determining the shape of a two-dimensional perimeter,
which resides on the surface of the skull. So if your claim of the LOS
being "nearly straight on to the entry" means perpendicular to the surface
at the entry then the oval/elliptical shape of the exterior would
invalidate the association with the bevel. This situation arises since the
bevel of the interior surface at close to normal incidence requires a
deflection of the bullet that would have altered its displacement or
striking area from circular to rectangular with slight rounding of
corners.
>
> >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.
As I have shown above, a bullet acquires a passive yaw during deflection.
So the finding of a bevel with a circular perimeter and a hole with an
oval/elliptical perimeter on the opposite side of the skull requires
nonparallel surfaces, just as on the block used in my experiment.
>
> >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?
I wonder why Arlen Specter or other inquisitors did not ask the Parkland
doctors or the prosectors to describe their viewing angles when they
re****ted surface wounds of various shapes?
>
> >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
th=
e
> >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?
I meant to say, despite the thinness of the scalp and periosteum, we
do not see a through hole.
>
> 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.
I wonder how you explain the failure back wound photographs to show a
bullet hole? In these photos were see enough of the back to ascertain that
the LOS from the camera is nearly roughly perpendicular to photographed
surface.
>
> >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.
Apart for the unphysical assertion that a thin skull deflected a medium or
a high speed bullet by about 20 degree, the passive yaw that must
accompany a deflection disallows a circular or elliptical perimeter on the
inner surface of the skull. Instead the yawed bullet would produce a
surface hole whose perimeter resembled a rectangular with rounded corners.
For a deflection of 20 degree the length of the linear ****tions of the
rectangle would be the length of the bullet multiplied by the sine of the
angle or about 10 mm.
>
> >> Also, I don't recall Finck saying anything about an eliptical skull
ent=
ry
> >> in his letter to Bloomberg or during either his Shaw Trial test. or
HSC=
A
> >> 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
w=
as
> eliptical...don't you?
I think you know that I am talking about the shape of the hole on the
surface of the skull.
>
> >> 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-u=
p
> >> 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?
Failure to remember what you wrote a few paragraphs earlier is a sign of
old age. For proof of the pudding see your reply to the following
paragraph that said "So post F8 again, John . . . ."
>
> >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
tha=
t
> >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?
I have responded to your request to post a graphic by explaining that the
forensic information permitted no more than a verbal description of the
trajectories of the two bullets that exited the skull. I have posted the
relevant text from Punching Holes in response to your earlier request. So
does your knowledge that I have not drawn a graphic showing the
trajectories motivate your "ad nausem" requests for the diagram? This and
other threads containing the same sickening request answers my question
affirmatively.
>
> >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.
I am waiting since May 16 for you to post the link to F8.
Herbert
|
