The Trach Incision -

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No Pat, the FBI did not write a report suggesting the fragment was found behind where the limo was at the time of the shooting. They wrote a report suggesting the opposite.

There are two FBI reports published in the WCR regarding this, this one dated 11/28/63, and this one dated 7/13/64. Both of them state that the fragment was found about 25 feet to the south of where the limo was. Since the limo was traveling southwest, that means the fragment was found ahead and to the left of the limo.

And BTW, Billy Harper was asked by Milicent Cranor to point on a map of Dealey plaza where he found the fragment, and this is where he pointed:

 

This image was posted in a forum by Robin Unger, so I assume it is correct.

This is what Richard Gilbride wrote in Matrix for Assassination, which supports the  location on the  map:

"William Harper was given a map of Dealey Plaza in 1997 by researcher Milicent Cranor, who asked him to mark just where he found the fragment. Harper placed the 'approximate location' well forward of the limousine's location during the head explosion (as determined from Zapruder frame 313."

(BTW, Gilbride's theory is that the fragment rode the trunk of the limo for a ways before falling off. And then some person found it and threw it up on the grass.)

This is actually kinda funny, Sandy. The early researchers assumed the FBI report's claim the fragment was found 25 feet south of where Kennedy was shot was a reference to where Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and that this was thereby a reference to the fragment being found behind where Kennedy was shot in the head. Most continued to make this argument until a few years ago, when Dr. Mantik conceded that I was correct in citing Harper's numerous and consistent marking of Dealey Plaza maps as conclusive.

All this sidesteps the issue, moreover. Your theory holds that the fragment was moved so it could be used to sell that it was blown forward from the limousine. Where was it ever used in such a manner? Is the location of its recovery discussed in the Warren Report, and presented as a reason to believe it came from the front of the head? Did the doctors discuss this in interviews?

Nope. There was little to no discussion of the fragment by those tasked with selling that the shots came from behind. And all the early discussion in the research community centered on the claim it was found behind the limo.

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

There is no way I piece of bone could have flown that far ahead in front of the limo.  No way.  I have a video showing a man being shot from behind by a high-powered gun.  The muzzle is about 5 feet at most from the back of his head.  As soon as the bullet strikes, an eerie thing occurs - a piece of flesh colored bone goes spinning from the back of his head.  The execution was filmed in slow motion so you can really see a lot of detail.  But this piece of spinning bone flies at most 5-6 feet to the side of the poor man's head.

Anyway, I know that every head shot is going to be different, but we're expected to believe that a piece of bone from Kennedy flew 90 feet *ahead* of him?  Perhaps this bone landed on the trunk and it was knocked off or somehow deposited in that vicinity when the car sped on. 

None of the skulls shot by Dr. Lattimer had fragments fly that far, either. Because he was trying to re-create a through and through wound, as opposed to a tangential wound. The Discovery Channel accidentally made a tangential wound while filming Inside the Target Car. The flight of the largest fragment in that outtake resembled the flight of the Harper fragment. As shown below:

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well of course the large triangular fragment came from the front top of the head. Nobody disagrees with that. It's just that it wasn't visible till the secret "medical procedure" to the top of the head -- as recorded in the Sibert / O'Neill report -- was performed. Which was done after the body departed Dallas.

The scalp on top of the head was cut open during this procedure, exposing the fragments there.

So, you're saying this fragment was not missing in Dallas? And that it was removed by the doctors during the "pre-autopsy"? And then switched out with the actual fragment flown in from Dallas, the Harper fragment?

 

1. A fragment from the right back of the head is blown out in Dallas from a shot to the right temple. I will call this the Harper Fragment.
    
2. The Harper fragment is somehow taken to Bethesda.
    
3. Pre-autopsy surgery is performed on the head some time after the body leaves Dallas. Part of this surgery is the opening up of the scalp on the top of the head. This exposes the fragments there. Three fragment are removed to create a blowout there. This includes the large triangular fragment.
    
4. The body officially arrives at Bethesda. Humes notes the surgery to the top of the head.
    
5. The Harper fragment and triangular fragment are brought to the autopsy, but not together. (Also the two small fragments.)
    
6. The Harper fragment is put in place on the right back of the skull. The doctors believe they see a puncture hole in the margin between this fragment and the intact bone, that lines up with the 6 x 15 mm hole in the scalp near the EOP.
    
7. The same is done with the triangular fragment, but that goes at the top of the head. Again the doctors believe they see a hole in the margin between this fragment and the intact bone.
   
   They (pretend to) see beveling on both holes, the one in back indicating it is an entrance wound and the one on top indicating it is an exit wound.
    
8. It is decided that a definite entrance hole in the back of the head (not a tiny puncture hole requiring the Harper fragment to be in place) would best support a shot-from-behind narrative. So the Harper fragment is done away with and it is pretended that there is a bullet hole just below the large top-of-head blowout.
   
   It is also decided that the fragment should be flown back to Dallas and used to further support the shots-from-behind narrative. (See #9.)
   
   That the fragment is flown back to Dallas explains the hole at the back of the head that the morticians have to deal with.
    
9. The Harper fragment is flown back to Dallas and then planted on the grass in Dealey Plaza, so that it can be found forward of where the limo was when Kennedy was shot in the head.
    
10. Bill Harper finds the fragment, has it analyzed, and gives it to the FBI. The FBI reports on it. Anybody who reads the report is supposed to believe that the fragment is the triangular one that came to the autopsy and was put on the top of the skull. Or at least that was the plan. That the bone was found to be occipital messes up the plan.
    
    The fragment has no future and the FBI disappears it.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is actually kinda funny, Sandy. The early researchers assumed the FBI report's claim the fragment was found 25 feet south of where Kennedy was shot was a reference to where Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and that this was thereby a reference to the fragment being found behind where Kennedy was shot in the head.

Well that was wishful thinking on their part, and dishonest in my opinion. If any assumption is to be made as to which shot the FBI was referring to, it should be the shot related to the fragment being reported on.

Most continued to make this argument until a few years ago, when Dr. Mantik conceded that I was correct in citing Harper's numerous and consistent marking of Dealey Plaza maps as conclusive.

All this sidesteps the issue, moreover.

Your theory holds that the fragment was moved so it could be used to sell that it was blown forward from the limousine. Where was it ever used in such a manner?

The plan was initiated by planting the fragment where the shots-from-behind narrative required it to be... ahead of the limo. From Bill Harper's description of where he found the fragment, we can see that it was sufficiently forward that it could be mistaken in no other way.

Problem is, the plan was mucked up by Bill Harper taking the fragment to have it analyzed. The doctor who analyzed the fragment declared it to be occipital, and that put the kibosh on the plan. (Who would have thought that would happen?) So the FBI reports of the fragment were buried in the 26 volumes and the fragment never mentioned in the WC report.

Is the location of its recovery discussed in the Warren Report, and presented as a reason to believe it came from the front of the head?

Did the doctors discuss this in interviews?

They didn't talk about the plan. (They probably weren't aware of it.)  But Boswell talked freely about the fragment, and Finck slipped a couple times.

Nope. There was little to no discussion of the fragment by those tasked with selling that the shots came from behind. And all the early discussion in the research community centered on the claim it was found behind the limo.

 

[Michael Walton]

SANDY: The plan was initiated by planting the fragment where the shots-from-behind narrative required it to be... ahead of the limo. From Bill Harper's description of where he found the fragment, we can see that it was sufficiently forward that it could be mistaken in no other way.

Sandy, I know we agree on some things on EF and others we don't, which is fine.  But your above theory - this is where, IMO, we start getting into every gosh-darned thing that happened is a conspiracy. I know I don't have all of the answers - as I stated earlier, perhaps the fragment somehow landed on the trunk and stayed there until it fell off when the car sped on.  I mean, I know that sounds really weak.

But now, according to your theory, we actually have the bad guys picking up fragments, sneaking them down 90 feet from Z313, looking around, and then dropping them in the grass or wherever?

Sorry to say, but as weak as my idea is here, yours is starting to sound like when Oddjob dropped the convenient golfball on the course like in the Bond film.  It's starting to get into the silliness section.

[Tom Neal]

On 12/13/2016 at 1:16 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Because of this he is forced to cherry pick testimonies to bolster his case.

 

Cherry-picking?

You are cherry-picking Diana Bowron's testimony. She did NOT change her statement. Pat Spear did exactly what you do here, and Cliff Varnell caught him at every word. Go back and READ her testimony.

 

[Tom Neal]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom Neal said:

Bob, as I have repeated all of the above to you too many times to count, I don't know why you would ever accept this horizontal trajectory, but since you came up with an actual angle (42-degrees) for the first time and are looking for possible paths on a diagram, I'll share the above.

Obviously you haven't seen a tracheotomy performed. As I've stated before, I have. The above diagram only includes musculature, I have left off the subcutaneous layers and skin. The skin of the throat does NOT lie on top of the trachea, and the angle between the two wounds may be discerned.

Sandy, You used the term "tangential" yourself, if you don't like it, don't use it.

Note that I didn't say I object to using the phrase "tangential wound." I said we (plural) have to be careful using the word tangential with wounds because it might mean something different than what we might expect. For example, I've seen "tangential wound" used to describe the blowout at the top of Kennedy's head. Clearly a misuse of the word. As I read what you said in your post, I got the impression that your idea of a tangential wound is one from a glancing shot where just a tiny force is applied to the object being shot. I may be wrong, but I think that a tangential wound is one where the projectile hits at an angle and deflects (or skids) off the surface rather penetrating. The amount of force the projectile applies to the object can be considerable and it would still be considered a tangential wound because the projectile didn't penetrate.

IMO it is far more accurate in describing the wound than any other term used. A "tangential wound" is not the same as a tangent line in geometry, but we are referring to wounds, so how could confusion result? e.g. Kemp Clark's description of a POSSIBLE cause of the missing occipetal bone was a "tangential wound" caused by a bullet traveling parallel to the missing dish-shaped skull piece. The bullet would have struck one edge of the "dish" first and then the opposite edge, removing the piece of skull. Clark is using correct terminology, and I will continue to use the word "tangential" as it applies to trajectory and/or wounds.

I note that both you and BP are now stating that the skull deflection was only "a few degrees." That's quite a dramatic change from your previous beliefs.

I've never thought that the change in direction was great. (I do recall you characterizing my hypothesis that way.)

I've never given a detailed presentation of my hypothesis. I've only summarized my thinking. So I've never talked about degrees of deflection.

Read the statement in the upper left corner of my diagram, including the source. Now explain or produce a diagram of a bullet or whatever that hits the skull near the EOP, is deflected only a few degrees downward and hits the trachea at the wound location. Include a further deflection off a vertebra if you still believe that would produce the LARGE angle required.

That statement in the upper left corner of the diagram is wrong. If a projectile hits an object obliquely,  a deflection will occur in all but the most idiosyncratic cases. The only question is the degree of deflection.

For Sandy and Bob, you can propose all the VAGUE theories you want regarding deflecting bullets and bone fragments, but neither one of you has produced a trajectory from a shooter to skull, to bone to trachea to exit wound.

I've given rough ideas of the trajectories in my theory. Not rigorous to be sure.

If you can't do this, you don't have a theory or whatever term you want to use. Now Bob, if your 42-deg angle traj from skull to vertebra is also the angle from shooter to skull, where is the shooter located that would produce this trajectory? As an example, the line of sight from the 6th floor was 20 degrees.

If the angle from shooter to skull was on the order of 20-deg, what turned the trajectory from 20 to 42 degrees - scalp and skull shape? Scalp is not going to affect the direction of a high-velocity bullet, nor produce any noticeable velocity reduction. A high-velocity bullet on a downward trajectory is not going to follow the ascending curve of the skull. The force are all wrong here. The bullet would simply nick the skull (producing a hole in the scalp) and continue on its original trajectory.

Sandy/Bob, which impact produces the most force on the bullet - a shot parallel to the ground that perforates the skull at a 90-deg angle, or a shot on a descending trajectory that inflicts a tangential wound at the skull?

These forces are very difficult to solve. For example, in the case where the skull is hit straight on (90 degrees), how are you going to calculate the deceleration of the bullet upon hitting the skull? Deceleration depends upon a number of factors, like the resulting movement of the head, the flexing of the bone, deformation of the bullet, etc. And you need to know the deceleration in order to calculate the force (F = m a).

As a general rule, of course, smaller forces are involved in tangential shots.

Do the math, and it's not difficult in this case, to calculate the force of a direct head-on collision of bullet and occipital skull. Take this force ( F=mA, or even linear momentum) and apply it PERPENDICULAR to the velocity vector as it existed prior to the collision.

Despite the unquestionably GREATER force here, the original trajectory is altered by less than one degree. Thus, the tangential collision would produce a considerably SMALLER deflection angle.

Huh? If the straight-on bullet were deflected at all (because it didn't penetrate the target and didn't lose all its kinetic energy in the collision), the deflection angle would be 180 degrees! The tangential bullet with a smaller force would indeed produce a smaller deflection. But even, say, a whopping 20 degrees of deflection would be considerably smaller than the 180 degrees.

If the skull can't turn the bullet even a single degree, how much of a change in the angle could the impact with a vertebra produce? There is considerable disagreement if there was any damage to a vertebra at all, and no one has proposed anything more than slight damage.

No sharp turns were performed by any projectile PRIOR to the tracheal injury. Only bullets at the end of their trajectory, with velocity almost spent make sharp turns.

And this is why I don't post here.

I quote from a forensic book and Sandy Larsen says it's wrong - he knows better.

He ignores the main point of the post to continue to peck away at his personal definition of tangential which is completely irrelevant.

The forces are difficult to solve if you don't understand the basic physics. The movement of his head? Such a small effect as to be negligible. If you don't know how to calculate the acceleration in this case, then you need to go back to high school. I will no longer address you in this post.

Huh?

The straight on bullet is NOT deflected - I said TAKE the force from a straight on collision and apply that. Don't you even READ these posts?

You say you never posted your entire theory. I've been saying that forever. Why not? Because you don't have a complete path to report. It doesn't work and even though you claim you have an entire theory, you're AFRAID to post it because it doesn't work.

You also are convinced your theory MUST be correct, because of a GIF of JFK's shirt and tie pasted onto a DEAD body lying flat on it's back instead of sitting upright. If you had bothered to read the discussion of this, there are numerous statements that this cannot be done with the required accuracy. The photo used is not the original and has such high contrast it is almost a matter of guesswork to differentiate shadow from body. For example, the left shoulder of the shirt is aligned with the shadow of the shoulder, not the shoulder itself. This moves the shirt down at least an inch or two.

You cherrypick testimony, information, and refuse to post the full path of the trajectory you claim.

[Tom Neal]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

SANDY: The plan was initiated by planting the fragment where the shots-from-behind narrative required it to be... ahead of the limo. From Bill Harper's description of where he found the fragment, we can see that it was sufficiently forward that it could be mistaken in no other way.

But now, according to your theory, we actually have the bad guys picking up fragments, sneaking them down 90 feet from Z313, looking around, and then dropping them in the grass or wherever?

Sorry to say, but as weak as my idea is here, yours is starting to sound like when Oddjob dropped the convenient golfball on the course like in the Bond film.  It's starting to get into the silliness section.

Starting to sound weak? Have you read his ideas about his long thin bone fragment taking it's amazing journey? That JFK was shot in the back by a person or a device hiding in the limo trunk? The back shot that was deflected off of nothing?

Forensic experts published in a standard medical text in a college medical library know nothing. He dismisses their statements as "wrong."

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

SANDY: The plan was initiated by planting the fragment where the shots-from-behind narrative required it to be... ahead of the limo. From Bill Harper's description of where he found the fragment, we can see that it was sufficiently forward that it could be mistaken in no other way.

Sandy, I know we agree on some things on EF and others we don't, which is fine.  But your above theory - this is where, IMO, we start getting into every gosh-darned thing that happened is a conspiracy. I know I don't have all of the answers - as I stated earlier, perhaps the fragment somehow landed on the trunk and stayed there until it fell off when the car sped on.  I mean, I know that sounds really weak.

But now, according to your theory, we actually have the bad guys picking up fragments, sneaking them down 90 feet from Z313, looking around, and then dropping them in the grass or wherever?

Sorry to say, but as weak as my idea is here, yours is starting to sound like when Oddjob dropped the convenient golfball on the course like in the Bond film.  It's starting to get into the silliness section.

Well Michael, this is a good example of how our respective MOs differ.

There is corroborated evidence that the Harper fragment was in Bethesda the night of the autopsy, and yet it is known that the fragment was found in Dealey Plaza the following day.

Your MO seems to be to simply blow off evidence of inconvenience, like it doesn't even exist. My MO, on the other hand, is to try and figure it out.

But, to each their own. Right?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Neal said:

 

On 12/12/2016 at 11:16 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Because of this he is forced to cherry pick testimonies to bolster his case.

Cherry-picking?

You are cherry-picking Diana Bowron's testimony. She did NOT change her statement. Pat Spear did exactly what you do here, and Cliff Varnell caught him at every word. Go back and READ her testimony.

Jeez Tom, did you even read my post? It had nothing to do with Diana Bowron. Where did I say she changed her statement? I didn't. (Unless it was on some other thread a long, long time ago that I don't remember.)

P.S. I didn't type the words on the above BOH photo. I just borrowed the photo for a point I was making in my post. A point that has nothing to do with Diana Bowron.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

And this is why I don't post here.

I quote from a forensic book and Sandy Larsen says it's wrong - he knows better.

What I said is true Tom, and you should know better yourself. The book claims, "After striking or perforating bone, bullets are not deflected from their original trajectory through the body." That is so obviously simplistic and wrong that I cannot believe you can't see it. Anything the bullet hits at an angle will deflect it. That's Physics 101. Whoever wrote the book doesn't know laws of physics.

He ignores the main point of the post to continue to peck away at his personal definition of tangential which is completely irrelevant.

The forces are difficult to solve if you don't understand the basic physics. The movement of his head? Such a small effect as to be negligible. If you don't know how to calculate the acceleration in this case, then you need to go back to high school. I will no longer address you in this post.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The computations ARE very complex. How the hell are you going to account for deformation of the bullet, for example? If computations were as simple as you say, then why is it that experiments continue to be carried out with live ammo on real targets? Why are bullets shot into gels, if the answer could be obtains with a few calculations? And how do you explain the fact that the same type of bullet can be shot into the same type of gel, multiple times ,and you get different results each time?

Huh?

The straight on bullet is NOT deflected - I said TAKE the force from a straight on collision and apply that. Don't you even READ these posts?

Yes I read it and what I said is correct. The deflection angle of a straight on bullet is 180 degrees! If the bullet doesn't penetrate the target, it will deflect right back toward the gun if there is any kinetic energy left after all loss of energy, e.g. due to bullet deformation. In an ideal (perfect) situation, where no energy is lost, the bullet will reverse direction at full speed. (Assuming the target is held stationary.) That is what is called an elastic collision. It is strictly theoretical because some amount of energy is always lost. But it's useful to show that straight on collisions can be deflected, and that the deflection angle is 180 degrees.

You say you never posted your entire theory. I've been saying that forever. Why not?

Why should I post my entire theory? It will take a lot of time to work all the details out and I have other things I'd rather be doing.

Because you don't have a complete path to report. It doesn't work and even though you claim you have an entire theory, you're AFRAID to post it because it doesn't work.

LOL, yeah that's it.

You also are convinced your theory MUST be correct, because of a GIF of JFK's shirt and tie pasted onto a DEAD body lying flat on it's back instead of sitting upright. If you had bothered to read the discussion of this, there are numerous statements that this cannot be done with the required accuracy. The photo used is not the original and has such high contrast it is almost a matter of guesswork to differentiate shadow from body. For example, the left shoulder of the shirt is aligned with the shadow of the shoulder, not the shoulder itself. This moves the shirt down at least an inch or two.

You cherrypick testimony, information, and refuse to post the full path of the trajectory you claim.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1. A fragment from the right back of the head is blown out in Dallas from a shot to the right temple. I will call this the Harper Fragment.
    
2. The Harper fragment is somehow taken to Bethesda.
    
3. Pre-autopsy surgery is performed on the head some time after the body leaves Dallas. Part of this surgery is the opening up of the scalp on the top of the head. This exposes the fragments there. Three fragment are removed to create a blowout there. This includes the large triangular fragment.
    
4. The body officially arrives at Bethesda. Humes notes the surgery to the top of the head.
    
5. The Harper fragment and triangular fragment are brought to the autopsy, but not together. (Also the two small fragments.)
    
6. The Harper fragment is put in place on the right back of the skull. The doctors believe they see a puncture hole in the margin between this fragment and the intact bone, that lines up with the 6 x 15 mm hole in the scalp near the EOP.
    
7. The same is done with the triangular fragment, but that goes at the top of the head. Again the doctors believe they see a hole in the margin between this fragment and the intact bone.
   
   They (pretend to) see beveling on both holes, the one in back indicating it is an entrance wound and the one on top indicating it is an exit wound.
    
8. It is decided that a definite entrance hole in the back of the head (not a tiny puncture hole requiring the Harper fragment to be in place) would best support a shot-from-behind narrative. So the Harper fragment is done away with and it is pretended that there is a bullet hole just below the large top-of-head blowout.
   
   It is also decided that the fragment should be flown back to Dallas and used to further support the shots-from-behind narrative. (See #9.)
   
   That the fragment is flown back to Dallas explains the hole at the back of the head that the morticians have to deal with.
    
9. The Harper fragment is flown back to Dallas and then planted on the grass in Dealey Plaza, so that it can be found forward of where the limo was when Kennedy was shot in the head.
    
10. Bill Harper finds the fragment, has it analyzed, and gives it to the FBI. The FBI reports on it. Anybody who reads the report is supposed to believe that the fragment is the triangular one that came to the autopsy and was put on the top of the skull. Or at least that was the plan. That the bone was found to be occipital messes up the plan.
    
    The fragment has no future and the FBI disappears it.

Let's see if I got this straight.

1. There was no hole on the top right side of the head prior to the pre-autopsy. surgery proposed by Horne So everyone claiming they saw such a thing is lying. Is that right?

2.  There was no small entrance hole at the back of the head. And everyone claiming they saw such a thing is lying. Is that right?

P.S. The FBI report on the Harper fragment makes clear that this fragment was found the day after the assassination, and was given to the FBI. As a result, it could not possibly be the triangular fragment recovered by the Secret Service and x-rayed at the autopsy. So the part of your theory which I've high-lighted above, is incorrect.

[Tom Neal]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeez Tom, did you even read my post? It had nothing to do with Diana Bowron. Where did I say she changed her statement? I didn't. (Unless it was on some other thread a long, long time ago that I don't remember.)

P.S. I didn't type the words on the above BOH photo. I just borrowed the photo for a point I was making in my post. A point that has nothing to do with Diana Bowron.

Me? Did YOU even read your post? You state people who changed their mind, then post someone elses photo with Bowron's testimony. Why didn't you mention that despite what you said, the text about her was NOT true. You didn't state that wasn't your photo. How could anyone know? Then of course you blame me for your mistake!

[Tom Neal]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

More TOTAL BS.

A bullet that perforates the skull is not deflected 180-degrees - it isn't deflected at all. You've decided that it bounced off - not perforated.

The book statement is entirely true. It's not referring to a deflection of .01 degrees, it's talking about a size that makes a difference. The deformation of a grazing bullet is not going to matter at all, when the total deflection is less than one degree, and the REQUIRED angle change is 20 degrees.

The statement is referring to a bullet that strikes a bone. The bone is not strong enough to deflect a bullet any appreciable angle without breaking. A piece of paper will deflect a bullet but to a degree that is irrelevant. You of course ascribe properties of a nearly spent bullet that can be deflected, because it has little momentum to a bullet traveling 1500 mph.

Your statements as to how difficult this problem is to solve are true IF you need an answer to the 3rd decimal place which I've already pointed out is not needed. Again, if you need a deflection of 20 degrees (actually more than 40...) and a demonstrably greater force produces less than one degree of deflection that is proof that a precise calculation is UNNECESSARY.

Considering your statements here, I have to ask, just what are your math and physics education and experience that allows you to make these sweeping statements with 100% confidence?

You won't put down your trajectory because it would take too long? Ridiculous. Your average post is 10 times the length of a description of your trajectory:

1. a bullet (either FMJ, fragmenting, or something else) strikes JFK's head at an angle I don't know.

2. this projectile strikes somewhere between above the EOP and just above the base of the skull, but despite my intentional never-ending comments about precise terminology, I will still refer to it as an EOP entrance.

3. this projectile on a downward traj curves toward the horizontal against its momentum to follow the curvature of the skull as it tunnels under the scalp. Yes, I'm saying that this 1500 mph projectile doesn't perforate the scalp, the scalp forces it to alter it's trajectory.

4. Somewhere this traj changes to an almost vertical trajectory (I don't know how, why, or where on the skull this happens)

5. Somewhere a bone fragment breaks loose (I don't where or from what) and this bone exits the throat wound).

6. Sometimes I mention a vertebra sometimes I don't, but I don't which which one(s). Worst case only slight damage is reported to a vertebra, but it deflects a bullet or a bone or something from almost vertical to horizontal. The problem is impossible to calculate to it must be the way I want it to be.

7. This long thin bone fragment stabilizes point first despite it's center of mass at the middle of the bone fragment and its center of pressure (I don't know what that is or how to calculate it but I saw it online) at a position that would turn it perpendicular to its velocity vector. I don't mention that this long thin bone has the thickness of a whole bullet or it couldn't leave a wound that every doctor and nurse at Parkland designated a *bullet* entrance - later *bullet* exit. I've been told this, but it's wrong because it isn't what I want - Perry stated that they considered that a bone fragment from the head wound MAY have exited the throat. They quickly dismissed this because "a secondary missile does not normally acquire that much velocity." I say this wasn't "normal." Of course, Perry states they dismissed this idea which is proof positive that nothing was abnormal, or they wouldn't have dismissed it. What do all the doctors know? I know better...

8. The bone fragment tears the cartilage of the trachea, continues on a straight line through subcutaneous tissue and layers of skin, tears a 1" vertical slit in the shirt, pushes the tie aside with the same point that tore trachea and flesh without leaving a mark or a blood stain, and finally with all of its velocity spent, it dribbles out of this exit, and falls never to be seen again.

9. I don't know what happened to the bullet itself. Why didn't it follow the path of the bone fragment? With it's higher velocity, smaller frontal area, and higher density it should have traveled further than the bone. If it didn't exit, where is it?

Okay. I just saved you all the time you don't have. Add the 3 trajectory angles, the origin of the bone fragment, and what happened to the bullet.

If you have been too busy to figure out the above then without these you have as BP says "Nothing." Yet here you are still offering your "theory" as the best solution.

Even Arlen Specter came up with a complete trajectory for his "magic bullet." You can't even do that.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's see if I got this straight.

1. There was no hole on the top right side of the head prior to the pre-autopsy. surgery proposed by Horne So everyone claiming they saw such a thing is lying. Is that right?

We don't know who saw the body in Bethesda before the pre-autopsy. So your question applies only to Dallas witnesses.

The witnesses at Parkland -- of which there were more than twenty -- are almost unanimous that the gaping wound was on the back right of the head. So if anybody at Parkland said they saw a large wound at the top right of the head (from where the large triangular fragment came), I'd say they were mistaken.

2.  There was no small entrance hole at the back of the head. And everyone claiming they saw such a thing is lying. Is that right?

I don't believe anybody in the gallery saw that hole in the skull. If they reported a hole, I believe they got that information from what the doctors said. Even the doctors had a hard time making out a hole. They initially called it a "puncture" wound on their handwritten notes, it was so small.

P.S. The FBI report on the Harper fragment makes clear that this fragment was found the day after the assassination, and was given to the FBI. As a result, it could not possibly be the triangular fragment recovered by the Secret Service and x-rayed at the autopsy. So the part of your theory which I've high-lighted above, is incorrect.

You're right, thanks for pointing that out. That part of my theory would work only if the dates on the FBI report were changed.

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen