Re: Dale Myers debunks his own work.

John Fiorentino wrote:
> Baden and the HSCA is all wet on the angle of the bullet through JFK. I 
> and others have shown this repeatedly. It will be in my book also. (If I

> ever get it out that is)
> 
> I visited with Dr. Lattimer (who wrote the introduction to my book) on 
> several occasions and discussed this at length.
> 

Not a good source. Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made 
JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher.

> You may wish to Google the archives here on alt.assassination.jfk
> 
> John F.
> 
> 
> <clarkwilkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>
news:9babcc7e-e9b3-4cf4-a673-936d204ea482@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 15, 7:33 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> "Nowhere does [Myers] cite any medical sup****t that the bullet 
>> passed >>> through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They 
>> tracked the >>> wound at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite 
>> to what Myers >>> showed. What a surprise. Again, what does this say 
>> about the quality >>> of [Myers'] work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<
>>
>> You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
>> upward" nonsense correctly at all.
> 
> I did.  You admit the angle below.
> 
>>
>> Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
>> street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
>> "upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
> 
> Angle of incidence equals angle of deflection.
> 
> It's simple physics.  A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
> impact - Not downward.
> 
> 
>>
>> The HSCA (incorrectly, as is quite obvious by taking just a cursory
>> look at the top autopsy photo linked below) only determined that the
>> SBT bullet was travelling "11 degrees upwards" when JFK was re-
>> positioned in a ramrod straight ("anatomical") position.
> 
> Thus, you admit the HSCA tracked the wound at an 11 degree UPWARD
> angle.
> 
>>
>> But the bullet was ALWAYS travelling DOWNWARD from the sniper's
>> (Oswald's) POV...quite obviously.
> 
> Yes.  It was traveling downward until it hit JFK.
> And then the laws of physics take over.  Either it followed the path
> of "least resistance" or it was deflected upwards.
> Those are the laws of physics.
> 
> LNer's cannot change them.
> 
> 
>> Which means, after traversing the
>> soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back and neck (throat) and striking
>> "no bony objects" to divert its path significantly (if at all), the
>> downward-angled bullet
> 
> You're using the "path of least resistance" argument.
> 
> 
>> had nowhere else to go except into the car's
>> seats or floor or into the body of the person who was sitting in front
>> of him (John Bowden Connally Jr., Governor of Texas).
> 
> Thereby conveniently missing the car seat or the car floor, correct?
> 
> 
>>
>> And even Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees with LNers on this one; i.e., Wecht
>> believes that the bullet did NOT change from a DOWNWARD course to any
>> kind of an UPWARD course after it passed through John F. Kennedy's
>> body.
> 
> Nice try.  Wecht is a very reliable source.  Now all you have to do is
> show the bullet traveled through JFK at a downward angle.  You still
> haven't done that.  We have the ****rt that shows that back entry point
> ant the throat exit point.  Disprove them.
> 
>>
>> RE: The HSCA.....
>>
>> By way of the top autopsy photo linked below, the House Select
>> Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel is pretty much PROVEN dead-wrong
>> with respect to its determination that the SBT bullet was travelling
>> UPWARD through an anatomically-erect John Kennedy.
> 
> Are you claiming the HSCA never saw this photo?
> 
> And your photo doesn't show a thing, BTW.
> 
> Meanwhile, the ****rt does.
> 
>>
>> Because it can't be any more obvious that Kennedy IS in an
>> "anatomical" (straight up & down) posture in this top photo below; and
>> it also couldn't be any more obvious that the visible throat wound in
>> this same turned-sideways picture is located WELL BELOW the wound in
>> JFK's back, despite the fact we can't see the actual bullet hole in
>> Kennedy's back here.
> 
> Fascinating!  You can't see the back wound in the photo but you know
> it's higher.  You should be playing blackjack in Reno.  You'll know
> the next card.
> 
> 
>> But SOME common sense regarding the approx.
>> location of the wound should be used when examining this photograph.
> 
> You mean the entry hole in the ****rt?
> 
> No.  You don't mean that, do you?  As an LNer, you must resort to
> imginary evidence.  We are to IMAGINE the HSCA was wrong and, to
> sup****t that, you post a picture of an imaginary back wound.
> 
>>
>> And when you toggle back and forth between both of the photos linked
>> below, can it BE any clearer that JFK's throat wound is located
>> "anatomically" lower than his upper-back wound?:
>>
>>
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>>
>>
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
> 
> Did it and - No - it wasn't clear at all.  But then I guess 11 degrees
> is tough to judge from a photo especially when you don't show - or
> deny - that an upright JFK doesn't have an 11 degree upward angle
> wound.
> 
> In fact, car seats recline, don't they?  If JFK's back is against the
> seat, he's actually leaning backwards - the EXCT OPPOSITE DIRECTION
> YOUR THEORY REQUIRES.
> 
> The only thing standing in the way of your conclusion is the actual
> facts.
> 
> 
>>
>> ================================
>>
>> WHERE EXACTLY WAS KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND 
>> LOCATED?:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
>>
>> ================================
> 
> Nice try again.  But I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt
> with the right to left exit wound at JFK's throat.  How far to JFK's
> left does JBC have to be for a bullet exiting missing JFK's tie knot
> to hit JBC's right armpit?
> 
> You seem to be wrong in every aspect of your argument.  Why is that?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> 
> ::Clark::
> 
>