In article
<48f50570-f8db-4981-b186-2b33d30c8005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On May 20, 9:22=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>>
>> IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired
fr=
>om
>> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is
intere=
>sting
>> but futile.
>
>You are opening an argument with a falsehood. My analysis at Punching
>Holes develops a general theory of forensic analysis and applies it only
>to the shots with declinations angles that match shoots fired from the
>sniper's nest of the TSBD.
Pardon me then for not being able to decipher from all your scientific
mumbo
jumbo what your theory was.
>> In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
>> proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the
BOH near
>> the EOP.
>
>The medical evidence played no role in showing that a shooter fired at
>least two shots from the sniper's nest.
It certainly does play a role in determining the paths of the two bullets
that
struck the President...and fourth grader can figure that out.
>In fact the opening paragraph of
>Punching Holes - Part Two states:
Ah, ha, you sound as if Punching Holes was some sort of authoritive
source....too bad you've convinced yourself it is.
>"Finding an abandoned rifle scientifically linked to the fragments
>recovered from the limousine and a whole bullet in the former vicinity of
>Governor Connally placed the shooter at the southeast corner on the sixth
>floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
>I invite you to post the basis for your opinion that I am attempting "to
>build a case for the head shot being fired from other than the sniper's
>nest."
I can see now that you're not...sorry, it took me so long to filter out
the B/S
in your posts to figure out what your theory is. My error.
>> The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
>> up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the
two=
> major
>> fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to
cau=
>se the
>> damage to the wind****eld trim and glass.
>
>A spinning bullet cannot undergo a deflection and maintain the alignment
>of its long axis with its altered direction of motion. For this reason
>your deflection speculation cannot stand with the curved arcs of the
>partial hole and bevel found on the outer table of the late arriving
skull
>fragment.
More B/S. The entry was near the EOP as seen in F8. The exit was just
forward of
the coronal suture as shown in the drawing by Dr. Angel. The longitudinal
laceration connects those two points. That aforementioned path, extends to
the
wind****eld damage. That was the path of the head shot...period. Most can
see
that...you just can't admit it, though....too bad.
>Further the smoothness of the arcs are evidence of transit by a
>well formed missile that retained its circular cross section.
More crap intended to mask the obvious irrefutable evidence that the
bullet
entered near the EOP, caused the longitudinal laceration through the
brain,
exited forward of the coronal suture (see Angel's drawing for the specific
exit
location), and then caused the wind****eld glass/trim damage.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/figure26.jpg
>
>The small radiopaque particles near the hole was evidence of transit by a
>bullet and the bevel specified the direction as from inner to outer
table.
What? Have you been living in a cave or something? Surdivan and Zimmerman
agreed
that the trail of opacities extending anteriorly from the entry near the
EOP
represented the little bone pieces from the beveled out inner table around
the
entry and was conmsistent with the bullet exiting the aforementioned
location.
>> Here are the key components of that evidence.
>>
>> 1) two large bullet fragments were found in the front of the limo and
>> ballistically matched (exclusively) to the M/C found on the sixth
floor.
>>
>> 2) three spent hulls were found in the SN and matched to that same
rifle.
>>
>> 3) a longitudinal laceration through the President's brain, noted by
the
>> autopsists, is highly consistent with the bullet having entered near
the E=
>OP and
>> exiting just forward of the coronal suture (precisely where an exit
defect=
> on
>> the large, late-arriving skull piece would have placed it)......a path
whi=
>ch
>> extends forward (using Z-312 to project it with reasonable accuracy) to
th=
>e
>> windsheld area.
>
>The coronal suture joins the parietal and frontal bones. This junction
>extends from one side of the head, over the top and continues along the
>opposite side.
Good for you..you know where the coronal suture is.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/cstopview.jpg
>
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/csleftside.jpg
>
>So the slightly elliptical arcs on the late arriving piece place an
>exiting bullet closer to a left-to-right than a rear-to-front trajectory
>or closer to a down-to-up than a level trajectory.
LOL. We sould learn where the bullet exited by reading Punching Holes
rather
than looking at Dr. Angels diagram which shows precisely where it
exited??????????? You've confused yourself badly..and I just hope not too
many
newbies as well.
>Again the directions
>left, right, down, up and level refer to body planes.
This gets funnier and funnier. The Greer shot JFK theory makes more sense
than
yours.
>> That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet
was=
> fired
>> from the SN.
>
>Indeed, now it the time for all honest investigators to "cut to the
chase"
>and confront the contradiction between the highly tangential strike near
>the coronal suture as required by both official trajectories and the
>slightly elliptical arc and bevel on the late arriving skull fragment.
You can take your tangential stike as well as your oval and elliptical
shape
evidence and toss them into the trash can where they belong because they
are
trumped easily by the evidence I described above.
>> >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.
>>
>> Two bullets that exited the skull????????????? How is that possible
when o=
>nly
>> one [head] entrance and one exit wound were found during the autopsy
and t=
>he
>> bain damage is consistent with the bullet [major frags] transisting his
he=
>ad
>> along a path connecting those two wounds?
>
>The head is connected to other parts of the body. So a bullet can exit
the
>head without having entered the same part just as a bullet exited
Governor
>Connally's chest without having entered the chest. As for the damage,
>attributing the re****ted injuries to one missile requires physically
>impossible treks by deflected fragment or fragments.
More B/S...the longitudial laceration connected the entry and the
principal exit
wound...It doesn't take a rocket scientist or reading Punching Holes to
figure
out the path of the bullet/major frags from that. And I'll get to your
"impossible treks" below.
>By contrast, the alternative scenario based upon the hard forensic
>evidence provided by Bethesda resolves the failings of the official
>trajectories and solves at least a few problems with the re****ted damage
>to the brain.
Sooo, you've been able to determine based on your examination of the
published
copies of the autopsy photos and x-rays and from the testimony that the
three
autopsy doctors were wrong about the path of the head shot bullet...EVEN
THOUGH
THEY LITERALLY HELD THE BODY IN THEIR HANDS????????????? Herbert, read
that last
sentance a few times and it might sink in just how ridiculous your theory
really
is.
>I quote from Punching Holes - Part Three.
Ah ha, the final authority on the head shot. LOL!
>"The first shot missed and alerted President Kennedy to an assassination
>attempt. He ducked but was struck in the back by a bullet with an
>approximate 45-degree angle of incidence. The bullet traveled up the
neck,
Up the neck? Not out the front of the neck? This is getting more and more
ridiculous as we go on.
>possibly inflicted minor damage upon the first thoracic vertebra, entered
>the cranial cavity from below, passed behind the right eye and exited the
>front right side of the head at a moderate incidence angle.
Ridiculous. Such a path would have caused a massive laceration to the
brain
under and forward of the cerebellum and there was no such damage re****ted.
>This bullet
>produced the elliptical arc described as the semicircular bevel.
What about the brain damage being totally inconsistent with your theory?
>Another
I'm bracing myself for a real bombshell of a theory now.
>and not necessarily a later bullet
Ah ha, two bullets fired at the same time (but not necessarily so)
probably
caused the damage to the head??????????
I'd almost be tempted to remove Marsh from my killfile to read his opinion
of
your theory. You notice none of the other LNs have, at least recently,
argued
with you about this...and the sad truth is that you think that's because
your
arguments are sound. Sorry Herbert...they don't argue with Marsh or the
"Greer
did it" theorist either...for obvious reasons.
>hit the rear of the head with an
>incidence angle of approximately 65 degree and exited to the right and
>rear of the vertex. The proximity of these exit wounds allowed the later
>bullet to produce and knock out skull fragments as secondary missiles."
You'ce come up with all that without ever seeing the body or the
originals?????????.....I can just imagine the theories you would be coming
up
with if you had. :-(
>> Are you saying you have hard evidence that the autopsists lied?
>
>What part of this alternative trajectory is not based upon hard evidence
>presented by the prosectors?
For starters, the brain damage...duh!
>In fact the testimony of SA Kelleman shows
>that on Friday night the prosectors were thinking that a bullet entered
>near the EOP and exited through the right-top ****tion of the large
defect.
>This scenario requires that President Kennedy was leaning forward at an
>extreme angle to have been shot from any reasonable location.
Good grief...was that the forensic pathologist, Kellerman? Earth to
Herbert:
They weren't sure exactly where the bullet exited because they didn't know
where
the late-arriving skull piece fit. That wasn't determined until years
later when
Dr. Angel placed it as frontal bone (see his drawing).
>Surprisingly the prosecutors did not apply these thoughts to resolve the
>earlier mystery of the back wound. The obvious solution being one flew
out
>of the large defect.
Yikes!
[...]
In fact, replacement
>of my geometric diagrams by CAD generated drawings would weaken Punching
>Holes by preventing readers from "seeing my work."
It's better they didn't "see your work", IMO.
>Unfortunately your scientific illiteracy
I've been waiting for this.
Let's go back in tme and examine one of your conclusions to determine YOUR
scientific literacy or illiteracy, OK, Herbert?
Once upon a time you wrote: "High speed bullets do not make abrupt
turns.."
Remember that statement, genius?
In response, I asked you, if that were true, what would happen if a high
speed
FMJ round hit a 20 inch steel plate angled 20 degrees away from its path.
Remember that question, Herbert?
And your answer is one that gives us some incite as to how you have been
able to
twist the evidence and arrive at this silly theory that has a bullet
entering
JFK's back and exiting somewhere out the top of his head.
Indeed your answer was: "My experience has shown that the described
situation
would stop the bullet."
Even to this scientifically illiterate, that's one of the the stupidest
remarks
(the bullet would stop?) I've ever heard..
>prevents seeing the lucidness of
>my geometric diagrams or comprehending their verbal descriptions.
>Personally I hold no grudge for your labeling my work as mumbo jumbo and
>only feel pity for one who has the intelligence to fill these gaps in
your
>knowledge.
Well, your credibiliy has taken a hit (the bullet would STOP????)and some
of us
don't give a hoot what your geometric diagrams look like nor whether you
think
there are gaps in my knowledge!!!!!!!!
>> >This and
>> >other threads containing the same sickening request answers my
question
>> >affirmatively.
>>
>> I think then if my requests sicken you we are done.
>>
>> >I am waiting since May 16 for you to post the link to F8.
>>
>> It posted, a day or so ago....you must have missed it.
>
>Google has failed to pick up the graphic and text. Early this morning I
>found the post by using Outlook Express. I thank you for the graphics.
>
>For starters what evidence do you have that the circular object is a hole
>of any origin?
What do you think caused that circular looking defect...a hammer?
>I asked because a round through hole would have been
>visible on an AP X- ray. Perhaps you care to comment of the following
>testimony.
Nope, because with that revelation you demonstrate once again how solid
your
knowledge about this case is....yup, that same degree of knowledge that
implies
the autopsists were morons...and provides us further understanding of how
you
were able to concoct your silly theory.
[...]
EARTH TO HERBERT...AGAIN...PLEASE ADD THIS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE:
"A
HOLE NEAR THE EOP WOULDN'T SHOW ON THE AP FILM BECAUSE (DRUM ROLL PLEASE)
THE
EOP AREA IS NOT VISIBLE ON THAT VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Congratulations, Herbert, you've made it onto my killfile...with Marsh.
John Canal
>Herbert
|
