Jump to content


Spartacus

Blood Spatter


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,156 posts

Posted 26 March 2008 - 09:38 PM

[...]

And if you look at the Nix film which exposed a frame closer to the bullet's impact to JFK's head than the Zapruder film did ... you would see the much wider pattern of back spray is at the top front half of the head and the more narrow exiting matter traveling at a higher speed coming out the back of the head. To show how this is done ... Sherry showed many high speed pictures of various objects detailing this occurrence.

\

Yeah right, the source for the frame is, what? Can you assure us pulldown was removed from the Nix film BEFORE the frame was studied... You know what pulldown is, yes? Perhaps you should consult with Sherry

Edited by David G. Healy, 26 March 2008 - 09:39 PM.


#32 Frank Agbat

Frank Agbat

    Advanced Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPip
  • 467 posts

Posted 26 March 2008 - 09:53 PM

[...]

And if you look at the Nix film which exposed a frame closer to the bullet's impact to JFK's head than the Zapruder film did ... you would see the much wider pattern of back spray is at the top front half of the head and the more narrow exiting matter traveling at a higher speed coming out the back of the head. To show how this is done ... Sherry showed many high speed pictures of various objects detailing this occurrence.

\

Yeah right, the source for the frame is, what? Can you assure us pulldown was removed from the Nix film BEFORE the frame was studied... You know what pulldown is, yes? Perhaps you should consult with Sherry


Actually, to be completely accurate, pulldown would only create an issue when the timing of the film is considered (due to the repeating of certain frames to make matching frame rates). However, *interlacing* would cause all sorts of problems when examining a frame in great detail.

Of course, if the examined material was film, then neither interlacing or pull-down is really germane to knowing if the image was accurate.

#33 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 26 March 2008 - 10:02 PM

Yeah right, the source for the frame is, what? Can you assure us pulldown was removed from the Nix film BEFORE the frame was studied... You know what pulldown is, yes? Perhaps you should consult with Sherry


David ... you should be trying to sell this garbage to the uninformed ... not us. The term 'pull-down' ... as I understand it - occurs when transferring film to video. This means that every so many frames there is a repeated frame. So lets assume that the head shot was a pull-down frame. That means on video that there is a second duplicate frame of the impact frame. Both frames show the same thing and I must say that neither have anything to do with the way the back-spray is seen on the kill frame. As you certainly must know - the initial explosion to the head occurs within a single film frame. So with that being said .... you can repeat that frame a million times and it will not change the information captured within that one film frame to those who know how to read it using blood spatter science.

And so you know ... I viewed the film directly from Robert's copy from the original and it had not been transferred to video at that time. So once again you are merely creating a smoke screen to try and appear like things are more complicated than they really are. If you once get your facts straight as to what is being posted ... feel free to explain in detail anything that you feel is relevant. But please be literate when composing your sentences ... if you can.


#34 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 27 March 2008 - 02:39 PM

http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page06.html


"Therefore, it is my opinion the bloodstain evidence is consistent with the injury to John F. Kennedy's head being the result of a single gunshot from the right front."




"Therefore, it is my opinion the bloodstain evidence is consistent with the injury to John F. Kennedy's head being the result of a single gunshot from the right front."



Is, without doubt, one of the most stupid and asinine statements ever made in regards to the facts of the assassination of JFK.

Yet! Has this kept some from actually believing it?? NOPE!
Has this kept some from attempting to "sell" it others??? NOPE!


"a single gunshot from the right front"

Came about as a result of an individual who purportedly claims expertise as a "Blood Spatter" expert, having conducted extensive testing into the subject matter.


http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page01.html

And, thereafter published the results of this testing, along with multiple "references" in regards to the reseach of the subject matter.

Unfortunately, the cited "references" tend to completely discredit the presented hypothesis.

As example:

http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page02.html

"Today, several books are available to those interested in blood stain pattern analysis, including Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: With an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, Second Edition by Tom Bevel and Ross Gardner 2001; Interpretation of Bloodstain Evidence at Crime Scenes, Second Edition by Stuart H James and William G Eckert. 1998; and Scientific and Legal Applications of Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation by Stuart H. James 1998." (emphasis added)
-------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I can not speak for the actual research conducted, which derived the conclusion that JFK was struck in the head by one shot fired from the front.

However, I can state as fact that Dr. William Eckert, with whom I spoke to many years ago on the subject of the JFK assassination*, does not support such a hypothesis.

*Dr. Eckert lives (lived) in Witchita, KS, and was readilly available to anyone who had the demonstrated ability to intelligently discuss the autopsy evidence. It is unknown if he is even still living, but in event that one wants to try:

Telephone: 316-685-7612---ask for Dr. Eckert!


In addition to Dr. Eckert:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page03.html

A bullet interacts with the head in several stages (17).


1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.
2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as backspatter.
3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through the brain.
4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary expanding cavity.
5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped exit hole.
6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped exit wound.
7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter, the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final size depending on how large the internal pressures became.


http://jfklancerforu...references.html

17. Gunshot Wounds : Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J. M. Di Maio--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page03.html

Although velocity and mass determine the bullet's kinetic energy, its wounding potential relies on the efficient transfer of kinetic energy to tissues. Tissue resistance, demonstrated in elasticity and density, slows the projectile. This transfers kinetic energy to the surrounding structures, which are displaced backward, forward, and sideward, producing a temporary cavity or wound (8).


8. A.C. Charters: Wounding mechanism of very high velocity projectiles. Journal Trauma 16:464, 1976
DiMaio VJM,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In gunshot wounds to the head, high velocity projectiles can produce a large wound surface (15).


15. Kirkpatrick JB, DiMaio V: Civilian gunshot wounds of the brain. Journal of Neurosurgery 49:185, 1978

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr. DiMaio, another of the primary referece's, absolutely does not agree with the hypothesis:

http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html

Implications for the physics of JFKs head shot

"The quick forward motion proves that the killing shot came from the rear. "

"Thus JFKs head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thusly, at minimum, two of the authors of cited references, of which one is a forensic anthropologist and the other a noted MD Medical Examiner, are in direct opposition to the hypothesis.


Now, for those who "fell" for and attempt to "sell" to others this totally unsupported hypothesis:

1. Please explain exactlly how a bullet striking from a frontal position, could have sent bullet fragments completely backwards to the extent that these fragments had sufficient velocity to crack the limosine windshield as well as dent the windshield molding.

2. Please explain exactly how a bullet striking from a frontal position, tore/blew out a section of the parietal/parietal-frontal lobe of the skull of JFK, thus leaving a wound of EXIT in the skull bone in which the exiting projectile went forward in the limosine.

3. Please explain exactly how a bullet striking from a frontal position blew cerebral tissue forward all over the back of the jump seats in which Nellie & JBC sat, as well as blowing this cerebral tissue well forward in the limousine.

4. Please explain exactly why three separate autopsy surgeons (as well as everyone else in the autopsy room) observed as well as measured an entrance wound of the scalp and skull which was located in the rear/EOP vicinity, as well as having located and measured an missile exit wound of the skull which was located in the parietal/parietal-frontal lobe of the skull.

5. And, since the author of this totallly unsupported hypothesis is fond of the testimony of SS Agent Roy Kellerman:

http://jfklancerforu...references.html

Then, why not also utilized Roy Kellerman's additional testimony?

http://mcadams.posc....ny/kellerma.htm

Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In summary!

The author of this hypothesis:

1. Cites as reference, some of the most qualified individuals in the fields of forensic sciences, to include two prominent MD's who are both recognized authors as well as one being an extremely well reknown Medical Examiner.

Yet, at minimum, two of the most prominent cited references (Dr. Eckert & Dr. DiMaio) are in complete disagreement with this hypothesis.

2. Attempts to utilize selective bits of testimony of SS Agent Roy Kellerman, yet ignores the fact that Roy Kellerman clearly testified that the entrance wound into JFK's head, which was observed during the autopsy, was in the rear of the head and just up from the hairline.

3. Completely ignores the testimonies of ALL three of the autopsy surgeons, who have clearly and repeatedly stated that the missile/bullet entry point which they observed was in the EOP/rear of the head.

4. Completely ignores the testimonies of the autopsy surgeons who have clearly and repeatedly stated that in a portion of skull which fit in the parietal/parietal-frontal lobe of the skull, they found an EXIT wound of a missile/bullet fragment which went FORWARD in exiting the skull from rear to front.

5. Completely ignores the evidence of bullet fragments which were found in the forward/front seating area of the Presidential Limousine.

6. Completely ignores the evidence which indicates that bullet fragments from the headshot at Z313 went forward with sufficient velocity to strike the windshield of the limosine and crack the windshield, as well as create a dent in the windshield molding.

7. Completely ignores the testimonies of those witnesses within the Presidential Limousine in which it is stated that cerebral tissue from the brain of JFK was blown FORWARD all over the occupants of the limousine.


Yet, despite all of the forensic; ballistic; pathololgical; and physical evidence, as well as the published books of noted (and highly qualified individuals cited as references, which contradict the hypothesis) has derived a hypotheses based on some mythological ability to look at the Zapruder and Nix films, as coupled with the statements of motorcycle cops who drove into a cloud of cerebral tissue which was blown up into the air, and has thusly derived the conclusion that JFK was struck in the head by a bullet which was fired from the front.

Of which at least two persons (Bill Miller & Al Carrier) have swallowed, hook; line; and sinker!


Would everyone else who is this ignorant of the facts, please raise their hand!



Mr. Miller:

Not only has your phone been ringing, but you were also left a recorded (printed for all to see) message as well:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary!

The author of this hypothesis:

1. Cites as reference, some of the most qualified individuals in the fields of forensic sciences, to include two prominent MD's who are both recognized authors as well as one being an extremely well reknown Medical Examiner.

Yet, at minimum, two of the most prominent cited references (Dr. Eckert & Dr. DiMaio) are in complete disagreement with this hypothesis.

2. Attempts to utilize selective bits of testimony of SS Agent Roy Kellerman, yet ignores the fact that Roy Kellerman clearly testified that the entrance wound into JFK's head, which was observed during the autopsy, was in the rear of the head and just up from the hairline.

3. Completely ignores the testimonies of ALL three of the autopsy surgeons, who have clearly and repeatedly stated that the missile/bullet entry point which they observed was in the EOP/rear of the head.

4. Completely ignores the testimonies of the autopsy surgeons who have clearly and repeatedly stated that in a portion of skull which fit in the parietal/parietal-frontal lobe of the skull, they found an EXIT wound of a missile/bullet fragment which went FORWARD in exiting the skull from rear to front.

5. Completely ignores the evidence of bullet fragments which were found in the forward/front seating area of the Presidential Limousine.

6. Completely ignores the evidence which indicates that bullet fragments from the headshot at Z313 went forward with sufficient velocity to strike the windshield of the limosine and crack the windshield, as well as create a dent in the windshield molding.

7. Completely ignores the testimonies of those witnesses within the Presidential Limousine in which it is stated that cerebral tissue from the brain of JFK was blown FORWARD all over the occupants of the limousine.


Yet, despite all of the forensic; ballistic; pathololgical; and physical evidence, as well as the published books of noted (and highly qualified individuals cited as references, which contradict the hypothesis) has derived a hypotheses based on some mythological ability to look at the Zapruder and Nix films, as coupled with the statements of motorcycle cops who drove into a cloud of cerebral tissue which was blown up into the air, and has thusly derived the conclusion that JFK was struck in the head by a bullet which was fired from the front.

Of which at least two persons (Bill Miller & Al Carrier) have swallowed, hook; line; and sinker!


Would everyone else who is this ignorant of the facts, please raise their hand!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could we anticipate some reasonable and rational answers to the above in this century?

I would like to move on to exactly how generally STUPID the ballistic testing was, in which this completely unsupportable hypothesis was based.

P.S. Did you ever get a "passing grade" in anthing which constituted research when much of your cited references were in direct contradiction to your findings?

If so, could I have the name of the school at which such grades are awarded?
"Jethro" is thinking of jumping straight into college from his sixth grade Valedictorian graduation (he was the only sixth grader graduating).

#35 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 27 March 2008 - 05:38 PM

2. Attempts to utilize selective bits of testimony of SS Agent Roy Kellerman, yet ignores the fact that Roy Kellerman clearly testified that the entrance wound into JFK's head, which was observed during the autopsy, was in the rear of the head and just up from the hairline.


Just to give an example .... someone correct me if I am wrong, but I could swear that in another area of this thread or another one like it .... that you argued that the entrance wound was above the occipital bone and in the cowlick. In this previous post of yours you have said the entrance wound was in the hairline. These are two different locations altogether, so would you mind explaining the location change and how you are able to have both depending on your position at any given time.

Thanks!


#36 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2008 - 08:53 PM

How ridiculous of you to start a thread like this. You have no forensic blood spatter expertise, so what do you do ... you single out a case that has nothing to do with the issue of exploding debris that occurs when a bullet slams into the brain matter. There are some simple basic laws of science that cannot be disputed and Sherry, who by the way has a far more detailed resume than a mere 40 hours of training, has reported to us how those rules of physics apply to blood spatter science. I am still waiting to hear you come up with one expert who has seen her work and dispute what she has written. Instead ... all you have done is try to cloud the issue with propaganda. In fact, I have noticed that you tend to start a lot of threads that really could and should have been limited to just one thread. I am only waiting for you to post some new threads that say something like 'blood spatter science ... I have no expertise in it but feel that I know more than those that do' - 'blood spatter science ... can we get around it by avoiding it' - 'blood spatter science ... only applies to those who are smart enough to understand it'. Let me know if you need more alike topics so to propagandize your agenda.





http://www.amazon.co...rimesceneinvest


http://www.amazon.co.....20J.M. DiMaio


Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html

High-speed bullets damage organs in ways different from what we usually think. Here is an extended passage from one of the U.S.s foremost authorities on the subject, Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985)

"Implications for the physics of JFKs head shot
Note how the bullet interacts with the head in two stages. In the first stage, the bullet passes rapidly through, leaving an expanding temporary cavity in its wake. The separate events of this first stage are (1) the bullet enters the skull by drilling a small entrance hole; (2) some brain matter is ejected backward out this hole (tail splash); (3) the bullet, beginning to tumble, passes through the brain; and (4) the bullet leaves the skull by blasting a large exit hole. Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

In the second stage (after the bullet has left the skull), brain matter continues moving radially outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, which can reach 100 to 200 atmospheres. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings, the largest of which will usually be the exit wound or an expanded version of it, with its size depending on how large the internal pressures became. As brain matter is ejected through the enlarged exit wound, it exerts a recoil force in the opposite direction, or backward. If this force is strong enough relative to other forces being experienced by the head at that time (which is well after the hit), the head may actually move backward (the so-called "jet effect"). If the recoil force is small relative to those other forces (such as neuromuscular reactions), the head may more in some other direction, with its motion being only modified by the jet effect.

Thus we expect a bursting head to show at least two separate movements. The first must be in the direction of the bullet, the second probably opposite to it. (Specifics of any movements beyond the first are difficult or impossible to predict, however.) In fact, JFKs head did move twicefirst briefly forward (the "snap"), then backward (the "lurch"). The quick forward motion proves that the killing shot came from the rear. The rearward motion was likely some combination of jet effect and a neuromuscular stiffening of the back muscles, which together straightened him up and threw him backward.
Could the rearward lurch have been the result of a second bullet, from the front, as implied in JFK? No, for several reasons: (1) There was only one set of wounds to the head, a tiny entrance wound in the rear and a larger exit wound on the right side/rear. (2) There is only one pattern of lead fragments in the heada cone fanning out from the rear entrance wound to the side exit wound. (3) There was no second diffuse cloud of tissue and large fragments, as created by the first hit. (4) There was no damage to the left hemisphere of JFKs brain, as would be required by a shot coming from the knoll, which was really to JFKs right rather than to his front. (5) The rearward lurch was an entirely different kind of movement from the forward snap. The lurch began in the right shoulder and arm and involved the head only later. It did not look at all like the snap. (6) Because the lurch involved the whole upper torso, it required more energy than the snap. Many weapons did not have enough energy. Thus JFKs head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear."



Certainly would appear that this guy knows what he is speaking of.

At least to me!


Tom, Rahn and DiMaio miss a few things. BIG things.

1. There is NO tailsplash or backspatter apparent at the back of Kennedy's head on the Z-film or any other film. None. This is why Sherry thinks the shot came from the front. Her experience tells her there should be SOME backspatter, and since the only explosion of blood and brain comes from the front of Kennedy's head, it seems obvious to her the shot came from the front.

2. There is NO cone of lead fragments leading from an entrance wound on the back of the head to the large defect. This is a LIE told by Humes to the WC to justify his low entrance, and repeated by Baden to justify his cowlick entrance, even though it was 4 inches higher on the skull. A close study of the x-rays, including the one by Durnavich on McAdams' site, demonstrates that the "trail of fragments" is inches above the cowlick entrance. My study convinced me that the fragments are, in fact, on the OUTSIDE of the skull. This fact is confirmed by three key facts, 1) the mortician Robinson discussed pulling bullet frags from Kennedy's scalp and there would be no frags in the scalp if the bullet exploded inside, 2) Humes testified that there was no brain in the upper right quadrant of the brain where the fragments appear to reside, and 3) the HSCA's own radiologist, David Davis, shared my appraisal, and said that some of the frags appeared to be OUTSIDE the skull.

The bullet impacting at 313 clearly broke up on the outside of Kennedy's skull at the supposed exit. I share your belief that the windshield crack and bullet frags on the front seat, etc, demonstrate that this shot came from behind. But your treating Sherry like she's a fool, when you believe there was a cowlick entrance--an entrance NOT SEEN by one person at the autopsy, is no less foolish.

#37 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 27 March 2008 - 10:15 PM

2. Attempts to utilize selective bits of testimony of SS Agent Roy Kellerman, yet ignores the fact that Roy Kellerman clearly testified that the entrance wound into JFK's head, which was observed during the autopsy, was in the rear of the head and just up from the hairline.


Just to give an example .... someone correct me if I am wrong, but I could swear that in another area of this thread or another one like it .... that you argued that the entrance wound was above the occipital bone and in the cowlick. In this previous post of yours you have said the entrance wound was in the hairline. These are two different locations altogether, so would you mind explaining the location change and how you are able to have both depending on your position at any given time.

Thanks!



Just goes to show that you understand nothing in regards to the pathological damage to the head of JFK.

Perhaps, if you get someone to read it to you, (and show you a picture or two) then you may understand.


1. Z313 impacted in the COWLICK area of the scalp and skull. The penetration through the scalp, as seen in the autopsy photograph of the back of JFK's head, correlates exactly with that anterior/posterior X-ray which also demonstrates the bullet penetration point through the skull.


2. The Altgens impact, struck the SCALP just up from the edge of the hairline, where the "blob" of brain matter is seen in the autopsy photo of the rear of JFK's head, considerably below the "Cowlick" entry into the scalp.

Had you bothered to have someone explain the pathological facts to you, then you would understand that the bullet which struck in the edge of the hairline, 'tunnelled" upwards, to strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP.


The primary question being, exactly why do I continue to waste my time with somone who knows as little about the facts of the assassination as you?


Answer: There are those out there who are actually researchers, and in addition to gaining what limited knowledge I may possess, they also get to observe the extent to which Bill Miller does not understand anything in regards to the assassination events.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis, 27 March 2008 - 10:20 PM.


#38 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 27 March 2008 - 11:13 PM

How ridiculous of you to start a thread like this. You have no forensic blood spatter expertise, so what do you do ... you single out a case that has nothing to do with the issue of exploding debris that occurs when a bullet slams into the brain matter. There are some simple basic laws of science that cannot be disputed and Sherry, who by the way has a far more detailed resume than a mere 40 hours of training, has reported to us how those rules of physics apply to blood spatter science. I am still waiting to hear you come up with one expert who has seen her work and dispute what she has written. Instead ... all you have done is try to cloud the issue with propaganda. In fact, I have noticed that you tend to start a lot of threads that really could and should have been limited to just one thread. I am only waiting for you to post some new threads that say something like 'blood spatter science ... I have no expertise in it but feel that I know more than those that do' - 'blood spatter science ... can we get around it by avoiding it' - 'blood spatter science ... only applies to those who are smart enough to understand it'. Let me know if you need more alike topics so to propagandize your agenda.





http://www.amazon.co...rimesceneinvest


http://www.amazon.co.....20J.M. DiMaio


Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html

High-speed bullets damage organs in ways different from what we usually think. Here is an extended passage from one of the U.S.s foremost authorities on the subject, Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985)

"Implications for the physics of JFKs head shot
Note how the bullet interacts with the head in two stages. In the first stage, the bullet passes rapidly through, leaving an expanding temporary cavity in its wake. The separate events of this first stage are (1) the bullet enters the skull by drilling a small entrance hole; (2) some brain matter is ejected backward out this hole (tail splash); (3) the bullet, beginning to tumble, passes through the brain; and (4) the bullet leaves the skull by blasting a large exit hole. Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

In the second stage (after the bullet has left the skull), brain matter continues moving radially outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, which can reach 100 to 200 atmospheres. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings, the largest of which will usually be the exit wound or an expanded version of it, with its size depending on how large the internal pressures became. As brain matter is ejected through the enlarged exit wound, it exerts a recoil force in the opposite direction, or backward. If this force is strong enough relative to other forces being experienced by the head at that time (which is well after the hit), the head may actually move backward (the so-called "jet effect"). If the recoil force is small relative to those other forces (such as neuromuscular reactions), the head may more in some other direction, with its motion being only modified by the jet effect.

Thus we expect a bursting head to show at least two separate movements. The first must be in the direction of the bullet, the second probably opposite to it. (Specifics of any movements beyond the first are difficult or impossible to predict, however.) In fact, JFKs head did move twicefirst briefly forward (the "snap"), then backward (the "lurch"). The quick forward motion proves that the killing shot came from the rear. The rearward motion was likely some combination of jet effect and a neuromuscular stiffening of the back muscles, which together straightened him up and threw him backward.
Could the rearward lurch have been the result of a second bullet, from the front, as implied in JFK? No, for several reasons: (1) There was only one set of wounds to the head, a tiny entrance wound in the rear and a larger exit wound on the right side/rear. (2) There is only one pattern of lead fragments in the heada cone fanning out from the rear entrance wound to the side exit wound. (3) There was no second diffuse cloud of tissue and large fragments, as created by the first hit. (4) There was no damage to the left hemisphere of JFKs brain, as would be required by a shot coming from the knoll, which was really to JFKs right rather than to his front. (5) The rearward lurch was an entirely different kind of movement from the forward snap. The lurch began in the right shoulder and arm and involved the head only later. It did not look at all like the snap. (6) Because the lurch involved the whole upper torso, it required more energy than the snap. Many weapons did not have enough energy. Thus JFKs head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear."



Certainly would appear that this guy knows what he is speaking of.

At least to me!


Tom, Rahn and DiMaio miss a few things. BIG things.

1. There is NO tailsplash or backspatter apparent at the back of Kennedy's head on the Z-film or any other film. None. This is why Sherry thinks the shot came from the front. Her experience tells her there should be SOME backspatter, and since the only explosion of blood and brain comes from the front of Kennedy's head, it seems obvious to her the shot came from the front.

2. There is NO cone of lead fragments leading from an entrance wound on the back of the head to the large defect. This is a LIE told by Humes to the WC to justify his low entrance, and repeated by Baden to justify his cowlick entrance, even though it was 4 inches higher on the skull. A close study of the x-rays, including the one by Durnavich on McAdams' site, demonstrates that the "trail of fragments" is inches above the cowlick entrance. My study convinced me that the fragments are, in fact, on the OUTSIDE of the skull. This fact is confirmed by three key facts, 1) the mortician Robinson discussed pulling bullet frags from Kennedy's scalp and there would be no frags in the scalp if the bullet exploded inside, 2) Humes testified that there was no brain in the upper right quadrant of the brain where the fragments appear to reside, and 3) the HSCA's own radiologist, David Davis, shared my appraisal, and said that some of the frags appeared to be OUTSIDE the skull.

The bullet impacting at 313 clearly broke up on the outside of Kennedy's skull at the supposed exit. I share your belief that the windshield crack and bullet frags on the front seat, etc, demonstrate that this shot came from behind. But your treating Sherry like she's a fool, when you believe there was a cowlick entrance--an entrance NOT SEEN by one person at the autopsy, is no less foolish.




Tom, Rahn and DiMaio miss a few things. BIG things.[/b]Hopefully, to most, it would be quite obvious that "Tom" don't miss too much.
As to Ken Rahn, there is most certainly a lot of things which he has missed.
And, Dr. DiMaio, it does not appear has missed that much either.

Now, it would seem that Pat Speer has missed quite a bit in that he remains completely unaware that JFK has TWO separate and distinct bullet penetrations in the rear of his skull.


1. There is NO tailsplash or backspatter apparent at the back of Kennedy's head on the Z-film or any other film.

Due to the limited amount of veins and arteries which feed the brain, as well as the thin nature of the scalp, it is entirely conceiveable that a bullet can enter the scalp with only completely negligable "backsplash" other than perhaps a fine mist, primarily of cerebral tissue.

Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film.

Due to the questionable aspects of the Zapruder film, even if sufficient backsplash were generated that it were captured on the film, the excise of possibly a SINGLE frame of the film could easily eliminate such evidence.


and since the only explosion of blood and brain comes from the front of Kennedy's head, it seems obvious to her the shot came from the front.

Then perhaps she cease attempting to determine some hypothetical scenario based on questionable evidence, and concentrate on the physical facts which include bullet fragments forward striking windshields; molding, etc; as well as three MD's who observed bullet entrance wounds to the rear of JFK's head as well as exit wounds in the forward portion of his head.

Last time that I looked, FACTS trump speculation everywhere except in the JFK assassination field.


2. There is NO cone of lead fragments leading from an entrance wound on the back of the head to the large defect. This is a LIE told by Humes to the WC to justify his low entrance,

http://mcadams.posc....imony/humes.htm

Perhaps your copy of Dr. Humes testimony states something about a "cone". But, my copy does not!

"In further evaluating this head wound, I will refer back to the X-rays which we had previously prepared. These had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput to just above the right eye, with a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye. These tiny fragments that were seen dispersed through the substance of the brain in between Were, in fact, just that extremely minute, less than 1 mm. in size for the most part."


"Commander HUMES - Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Coning/aka beveling of the inner table of the skull has nothing to do with a "cone" of bullet fragments.

"Commander HUMES - No, sir; I am speaking here of the wound in the occiput. The wound on the inner table, however, was larger and had what in the field of wound ballistics is described as a shelving or a coning effect."


A close study of the x-rays, including the one by Durnavich on McAdams' site, demonstrates that the "trail of fragments" is inches above the cowlick entrance. My study convinced me that the fragments are, in fact, on the OUTSIDE of the skull.

My study convinced me that the fragments are, in fact, on the OUTSIDE of the skull. This fact is confirmed by three key facts, 1) the mortician Robinson discussed pulling bullet frags from Kennedy's scalp and there would be no frags in the scalp if the bullet exploded inside, 2) Humes testified that there was no brain in the upper right quadrant of the brain where the fragments appear to reside, and 3) the HSCA's own radiologist, David Davis, shared my appraisal, and said that some of the frags appeared to be OUTSIDE the skull.


http://mcadams.posc....imony/humes.htm


"with a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye. These tiny fragments that were seen dispersed through the substance of the brain in between Were, in fact, just that extremely minute, less than 1 mm. in size for the most part."


Commander HUMES - Head wound--a careful inspection of this large defect in the scalp and skull was made seeking for fragments of missile before any actual detection was begun. The brain was greatly lacerated and torn, and in this area of the large defect we did not encounter any of these minute particles.

We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that fragment.
I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.



We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.
The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.




Certainly a lot of examination as well as removal of bullet fragments from something which you claim was not even there Pat!


But your treating Sherry like she's a fool, when you believe there was a cowlick entrance--an entrance NOT SEEN by one person at the autopsy, is no less foolish.


Try reading the below statement:

http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page06.html

"Therefore, it is my opinion the bloodstain evidence is consistent with the injury to John F. Kennedy's head being the result of a single gunshot from the right front."


With the massive amount of physical evidence that JFK was struck in the rear of the head by the impact of a bullet, anyone who would make such a statement is not a fool. They are a complete fool!


when you believe there was a cowlick entrance--an entrance NOT SEEN by one person at the autopsy, is no less foolish.[/b]


Well, this old fool will sit right in amongst all of the HSCA Medical Panel who also determined exactly the same thing.
As well as the fact which you have mentioned that there is a trail of fragments (bone & bullet) across the upper area of JFK's skull, which is directly related to the Cowlick Entry.



Sorry Pat! But it would appear that you had best "study" some more!

#39 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 March 2008 - 11:07 AM

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.
"Now, it would seem that Pat Speer has missed quite a bit in that he remains completely unaware that JFK has TWO separate and distinct bullet penetrations in the rear of his skull."

I am all too aware that the autopsy said there was one entrance near the bottom of the skull, and that, years later, after it was demonstrated that this trajectory didn't align with the supposed exit, another entrance near the top of the skull was "found". I am also aware that not one person present at the autopsy signed off on this entrance.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.

"Coning/aka beveling of the inner table of the skull has nothing to do with a "cone" of bullet fragments.'

The coning to which I referred was the cone of fragments mentioned by DiMaio. It is an accepted fact of wound ballistics that fragments cone out from the path of a disintegrating bullet. Do the fragments on the x-rays cone out from the bullet's path or not?

"Certainly a lot of examination as well as removal of bullet fragments from something which you claim was not even there Pat!"

Read the testimony again, Tom. Humes said the laceration was "The greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in
the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere." Your friend Boswell said "the top of his head was blown off. A 14-
centimeter segment of it was blown off. And it was on the right side of his brain that the brain was missing." This means the base of the laceration 4.5 cm below the vertex was essentially the base of the intact brain and that there was little brain substance above this point. When confronted with this fact, Sturdivan ventured that the fragments were flushed upwards by blood and that they'd attached themselves to bone flaps. I'm quite positive they're on the outside of the skull. The HSCA's radiologist, David Davis, said as much in a report written AFTER the pathology panel had already come to their conclusions and I've seen nothing to indicate Baden or Blakey contracted the others to tell them his conclusions. But truth will out.

"Well, this old fool will sit right in amongst all of the HSCA Medical Panel who also determined exactly the same thing.
As well as the fact which you have mentioned that there is a trail of fragments (bone & bullet) across the upper area of JFK's skull, which is directly related to the Cowlick Entry."

Funny that you now support the HSCA medical panel, when they felt quite sure there was no hairline entrance and that Humes and Boswell were completely incompetent to ever believe there'd been one. The cowlick entrance is a total fraud, IMO. BTW, there is no report citing a trail of bone fragments across the skull from the cowlick entrance, and the HSCA's radiologist Davis clearly stated that the "trail" of bullet fragments appeared to be much higher on the skull than the cowlick entrance, and that at least some of the "trail" was on the outside of the skull.

#40 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 29 March 2008 - 05:20 PM

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.
"Now, it would seem that Pat Speer has missed quite a bit in that he remains completely unaware that JFK has TWO separate and distinct bullet penetrations in the rear of his skull."

I am all too aware that the autopsy said there was one entrance near the bottom of the skull, and that, years later, after it was demonstrated that this trajectory didn't align with the supposed exit, another entrance near the top of the skull was "found". I am also aware that not one person present at the autopsy signed off on this entrance.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.

"Coning/aka beveling of the inner table of the skull has nothing to do with a "cone" of bullet fragments.'

The coning to which I referred was the cone of fragments mentioned by DiMaio. It is an accepted fact of wound ballistics that fragments cone out from the path of a disintegrating bullet. Do the fragments on the x-rays cone out from the bullet's path or not?

"Certainly a lot of examination as well as removal of bullet fragments from something which you claim was not even there Pat!"

Read the testimony again, Tom. Humes said the laceration was "The greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in
the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere." Your friend Boswell said "the top of his head was blown off. A 14-
centimeter segment of it was blown off. And it was on the right side of his brain that the brain was missing." This means the base of the laceration 4.5 cm below the vertex was essentially the base of the intact brain and that there was little brain substance above this point. When confronted with this fact, Sturdivan ventured that the fragments were flushed upwards by blood and that they'd attached themselves to bone flaps. I'm quite positive they're on the outside of the skull. The HSCA's radiologist, David Davis, said as much in a report written AFTER the pathology panel had already come to their conclusions and I've seen nothing to indicate Baden or Blakey contracted the others to tell them his conclusions. But truth will out.

"Well, this old fool will sit right in amongst all of the HSCA Medical Panel who also determined exactly the same thing.
As well as the fact which you have mentioned that there is a trail of fragments (bone & bullet) across the upper area of JFK's skull, which is directly related to the Cowlick Entry."

Funny that you now support the HSCA medical panel, when they felt quite sure there was no hairline entrance and that Humes and Boswell were completely incompetent to ever believe there'd been one. The cowlick entrance is a total fraud, IMO. BTW, there is no report citing a trail of bone fragments across the skull from the cowlick entrance, and the HSCA's radiologist Davis clearly stated that the "trail" of bullet fragments appeared to be much higher on the skull than the cowlick entrance, and that at least some of the "trail" was on the outside of the skull.




"Funny that you now support the HSCA medical panel, when they felt quite sure there was no hairline entrance and that Humes and Boswell were completely incompetent to ever believe there'd been one."


Well, since I have, since the early days of discussion on the subject matter, understood as well as completely accepted that the HSCA medical panel pretty well knew what they were doing, about the only thing "funny" about the entire aspect is exactly why anyone with even the smallest understanding of the evidence does/did not recognize that three MD's, despite what one thinks of their qualifications, did not make an approximately 4-inch error as well as a complete pathological error of which portion of skull bone the entrance wound which they observed was located.
Not to mention the even larger discrepancy in regards to the scalp entrance at the hairline, which by the way, Humes took a sample of and examined under a microscope.

Of course, in event one wants the "correct" answers, then one must ask the "correct" quesion!


"The cowlick entrance is a total fraud, IMO."


Sorry! Irrelevant as to what "Tom" does or does not think. The Clark Panel, as well as the HSCA Medical Panel, "trumps" an IMO!

Not to mention the simple fact that included within the same segment of skull bone in which is seen the Clark Panel/HSCA Medical Panel ENTRY WOUND/aka COWLICK ENTRY, there also exist the ABSOLUTELY/POSITIVELY beginning exit point of a bullet from within the skull which is exiting---forward.

Did it ever dawn on you that it is, for all known physical laws, completely impossible for a bullet to have struck JFK in the lowere edge of the hairline at frame Z313, thereafter to "tunnel" upwards through the soft tissue of the neck and ultimately strike the skull at a point higher than the scalp entry, and thereafter continue on upwards to exit in the top of the head?

http://www.assassina.../zfilm/z312.jpg

(provided of course that no midget/aka small person was hiding in the trunk of the Presidential Limo and fired some mysterious bullet up through the trunk and struck JFK in the rear of the head at the edge of the hairline.)

Which leaves one with the question, in the event that the bullet which struck JFK at the edge of the hairline at the base of the neck could not have physically turned upwards (after having been fired on an approximately 15 degree downward angle) to thereafter exit out the skull and blow off the top of JFK's head (as seen after Z313), then exactly what mysterious force could have done this while leaving an exit location on the interior table of the skull in that portion of skull which was blown off by the bullet impact?

For anyone who claims to be "Smarter Than a Fifth Grader", the answer remains quite simple.----Another bullet.

Now! Exactly where, other than the EOP entry wound (which was observed by all three autopsy surgeons as well as others present in the atuopsy room), would one look to find another bullet entrance wound in JFK's head.

Does one need to repost the anterior/posterior X-ray which the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA determined had a bullet entrance wound (which the HSCA by the way measured) in the cowlick vicintiy?


"BTW, there is no report citing a trail of bone fragments across the skull from the cowlick entrance,"


Hate to be the one to so inform you of the fact, however, it is sometimes completely impossible to determine whether an indication on the film is caused by a bone fragment; a lead fragment; a copper fragment; or someone stuck a piece of lead from a lead pencil up there.

All that can be determined is that an object, which is foreign to the surrounding area, and which demonstrates a greater density than the surrounding area, is present.

http://history-matte...tml/Image19.htm

http://history-matte...tml/Image36.htm

http://history-matte...tml/Image37.htm

http://history-matte...tml/Image38.htm


Should serve to indicate that one can not tell from looking at an X-ray whether they are looking at bone fragments; small metallic fragments; and/or even possibly film artifacts.



"The coning to which I referred was the cone of fragments mentioned by DiMaio. "


"2. There is NO cone of lead fragments leading from an entrance wound on the back of the head to the large defect. This is a LIE told by Humes to the WC to justify his low entrance"


Well, from my extremely limited understanding of the english language, it appears that you claimed that Dr. Humes stated it.



I am all too aware that the autopsy said there was one entrance near the bottom of the skull, and that, years later, after it was demonstrated that this trajectory didn't align with the supposed exit, another entrance near the top of the skull was "found". I am also aware that not one person present at the autopsy signed off on this entrance.


Nothing "found" that I am aware of.
However, the Clark Panel, through it's review of the autopsy X-rays and photo's, determined that the entry wound to the back of JFK's head which they could determine, was some 10 centimeters (4-inches) higher than that located by ALL THREE AUTOPSY SURGEONS.
Which by the way is also what the HSCA determined as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html

The separate events of this first stage are (1) the bullet enters the skull by drilling a small entrance hole; (2) some brain matter is ejected backward out this hole (tail splash);

--------------------------------------------------------

I do believe the operative word being: "some", which is of course, in reference to blood, totally dependent upon whether the SMALL 6.5mm/aka approximately 1/4 inch diameter bullet strikes one of those veins and/or arteries which feed blood to the brain.


And in that regards, one can rest assured that shooting a wet sponge; a plastic sack full of bloody clothing; and/or a plastic bag full of blood, has absolutely no comparison with shooting he skull of a person, or for that matter virtually any other creature.

And, it is absolutely stupid to even consider that there exists any ballistic and/or forensic similarities.

And, the only thing worse than someone attempting to pass off such a ridiculous experiment as having some basis in comparative analysis, would be those persons who read and believe such stuff without even recognizing the complete lack of comparative science.


Finally, this topic is about the completely asinine claim of JFK being shot in the head ONLY by a bullet fired from the front, based on review of a couple of poor quality films and thereafter shooting a wet sponge and a sack full of blood.

The topic of "The Head Wounds" is the proper place to demonstrate whether or not one has done their homework in regards to the TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTIVE bullet entrance wounds to the rear of the head sufferef by JFK.

#41 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,156 posts

Posted 29 March 2008 - 06:41 PM

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.
[...]


ahh, what version of the Zapruder film will be tested, the alleged camera-original currently lodged at NARA, that film?

Who, what, when and where will this testing be performed? For any such test to be deemed credible the likes of a David Lifton, Harry Livingstone, John Costella, David Mantik along with Roland Zavada or a credential verified Roland Zavada type need to be present... Time for the Gary Mack's, the Tink Thompson's, the 6th Floor Museum and its adherents, WCR advocates and diehards of the world to step aside... Nothing short of full 'film' forensic testing will suffice...

#42 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 March 2008 - 08:41 PM

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.
[...]


ahh, what version of the Zapruder film will be tested, the alleged camera-original currently lodged at NARA, that film?

Who, what, when and where will this testing be performed? For any such test to be deemed credible the likes of a David Lifton, Harry Livingstone, John Costella, David Mantik along with Roland Zavada or a credential verified Roland Zavada type need to be present... Time for the Gary Mack's, the Tink Thompson's, the 6th Floor Museum and its adherents, WCR advocates and diehards of the world to step aside... Nothing short of full 'film' forensic testing will suffice...


No such luck, Healy. The test mentioned was a test I proposed to Chad Zimmerman, who agreed it would be an interesting test. It entails filming a simulated head shot fired by a rifle identical to the proposed assassination rifle with a camera identical to Zapruder's, from the same angle as Zapruder at 313. I believe that, if the bullet really impacted on the BACK of the head at this time, there oughta be backspatter visible on the Z-film. Instead, and as even admitted by Bugliosi in his book, there's nothing. Such a test could convince people that hey, something's wrong here, and that hmmm, maybe the bullet at 312/313 actually impacts where we see the impact, at the supposed exit.

#43 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,156 posts

Posted 29 March 2008 - 11:37 PM

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.
[...]


ahh, what version of the Zapruder film will be tested, the alleged camera-original currently lodged at NARA, that film?

Who, what, when and where will this testing be performed? For any such test to be deemed credible the likes of a David Lifton, Harry Livingstone, John Costella, David Mantik along with Roland Zavada or a credential verified Roland Zavada type need to be present... Time for the Gary Mack's, the Tink Thompson's, the 6th Floor Museum and its adherents, WCR advocates and diehards of the world to step aside... Nothing short of full 'film' forensic testing will suffice...


No such luck, Healy. The test mentioned was a test I proposed to Chad Zimmerman, who agreed it would be an interesting test. It entails filming a simulated head shot fired by a rifle identical to the proposed assassination rifle with a camera identical to Zapruder's, from the same angle as Zapruder at 313. I believe that, if the bullet really impacted on the BACK of the head at this time, there oughta be backspatter visible on the Z-film. Instead, and as even admitted by Bugliosi in his book, there's nothing. Such a test could convince people that hey, something's wrong here, and that hmmm, maybe the bullet at 312/313 actually impacts where we see the impact, at the supposed exit.


sigh- a waste of bandwidth, what you need to do Spear is this: get past trying to impress Chiropractor Zimmerman about anything concerning this case..... talk to David Mantik, unless he won't speak to you? Send a request to Jim Fetzer, he'll get it to David Mantik Ph.D., M.D.?

Bugliosi? What? Reclaiming History was a colossal *book-publishing* failure, why should any thinking individual give Bugliosi one single ounce of credibility? Can you tell me what part of RHistory Bugliosi wrote? The only one hyping Bugliosi these days is David Von Pein, a guy that can't keep out of trouble on internet USENET boards and forums, fact is, he's been thrown off all of them, including this one...

You guys want to impress Hanks, have David Lifton give you a reccommendation...

#44 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 30 March 2008 - 02:32 AM

Now!

Us ole Pascagoula River "swamprat"/country boys may not be all that sharp, but, we ain't just plain stupid.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cdfa.ca.g...Euthanasia.html

Euthanasia By Gunshot


The weapon muzzle should be held 210 inches from the intended point of impact.

(emphasis added)

---------------------------------------------

http://www.equisearc...r/eqeuthan2466/

Method: Gunshot
Pros:

If done properly, it's reliable, instantaneous, externally bloodless, and humane.

it's recommended that the muzzle be held 1 to 12 inches away.

(emphasis added)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now! Those of us who were raised around the slaughtering of hogs and cows for ourselves, as well as working around some of the local slaughterhouses, have been aware of this method of killing the animals for years.

And, as dumb as we may be, we are not so dumb to stand only approximately 1-foot from an animal and shoot it in the head merely to be covered in "backspatter" of large amounts of blood and cerebral tissue.

And, it is most unlikely that any Vet is that dumb either!

But, since large amounts of blood and cerebral tissue do not go backwards from the point of entry of the bullet, there is truely no problem with the recommended procedure, which happened to be the standard method of excecution for livestock until the "bolt-gun" became available.
And even then, the bolt-gun was only utilized in those areas which slaughtered on a massive scale.

So, not unlike most of the other "good ole boys" down here in south MS, I have shot many a cow and hog in the head with a rifle, and have yet to receive sufficient "backspatter" to even notice it.

And, had those who were dumb enough to believe this "backspatter/aka one bullet from the right front, paid attention, they could have easily derived the facts from the presented information.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jfklancerforu...ryg/page04.html

For an appreciation of the distribution and dimensions of these stains, the adjacent photograph was taken through the viewfinder of a special magnifying device. The reference ruler measures in .02mm increments. The larger stain adjacent to the reference ruler is .04mm in diameter.

These stains are part of a back spatter pattern taken at 6 inches. The ammunition used was a Winchester .357 Magnum SPG, 180 grains, with a velocity of 1180 fps from muzzle, and 556.40-ft lb kinetic energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Six inches back from the point of entry, a "backspatter" stain which measured 0.04 mm could be seen.

Well, hate to be the one to inform, but 0.04mm equates to 0.00156 inch. Or, slightly over 1 thousandth of an inch.
And, this was the largest stain!

In fact, the "backspatter" stain is so minute and scattered, that it took photography through a special microscope in order to even be able to see it.
The stain is in fact so small that the naked eye would most probably not have even seen the "mist", had one been standing directly adjacent to the backspatter when it was formed.

2. One should also truly pay attention to the impact size of the projectile which it took to create this fantastic backspatter stain as well.
It happened to take a .357 Magnum round impact (9.15mm bullet) to create this amount of backspatter, whereas the Carcano bullet is only 6.5mm/.254 inch in size.

That is no doubt why most Vet's do not recommend anything above 9mm for shooting animals.
Shoot a cow in the head with a .45, and expect to get back-spattered with blood.
And anyone dumb enough to utilize a 12-gauge slug will be in need of an immediate bath.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But nevertheless, this fantastic amount of "backspatter", as created by the frontal strike of a bullet to the head of JFK, was caught on extremely poor quality film, not only on the Zapruder film of some 75 feet distance away, but also on the Nix film of over 200 feet distance.


And, it has thereafter been identically replicated utilizing bloody sponges, which were shot with considerably larger bullets, which ulitmately at a 6-inch distance from target impact produced a backspatter stain of such proportions that it takes a special microscope to even locate and see it.


Let's see now! We have Bill Miller who believed this nonsense, as well as Al Carrier.

Would anyone else who actually fell for and believed this, please raise their hand and move over to be seated with Miller and Carrier.

#45 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 30 March 2008 - 01:43 PM

http://www.crimelibr...llistics/4.html

High velocity bullets are often equated in formulaic evaluations with a "mist" pattern, which means the blood droplets are finer and create a lighter pattern. However, Wonder points out, mist is often not about the bullet's speed, and mist also results from other wound-causing incidents, so one should not identify gunshot solely in terms of spatter size or quality. The properties of the gun must also be considered, as well as the angle of the shooting and whether or not the victim was in motion of any kindrunning, struggling, falling, riding in a car.


The condition of the wound has to be analyzed fully before any conclusions can be drawn.



http://www.springerl...5t818783nqpnw1/


Received: 17 October 1995 Revised: 16 February 1996

Abstract Backspatter is the ejection of biological material from a gunshot entrance wound against the line of fire. This phenomenon was investigated experimentally in transverse gunshots to the heads of calves (n = 9) using two types of 9 mm Parabellum ammunition from shooting distances of 010 cm. The resulting bloodstains were documented on white paper placed horizontally 60 cm below the impact site. In this report the analysis was restricted to stains with a diameter > 0.5 mm. Backspatter was documented after every gunshot. The number of stains varied from 31324 per gunshot and appeared to be independent of the shooting distance. The maximum distance droplets travelled varied from 72119 cm. The majority of droplets accumulated between 0 and 50 cm. The number of droplets and the distances travelled should be higher in man for anatomical reasons. The direction a single droplet can take comprises every possible angle between the most tangential ones to the skin surface. This resulted in a semi-circle of 180 covered with stains. Skin ruptures of the entrance wound were not observed. The succession of events was documented on high speed film and started with the recoil of the firearm, immediately followed by a blow-out effect of the skin. Large droplets exited approximately 0.74 ms after the bullet impacted the skin. The calculated minimum initial velocity of these droplets was 1361 m/s. Backspatter from gunshots to the head likely is caused by the hot gases expanding subcutaneously and by cavitation-related intracranial overpressure and tail splashing. In three out of nine gunshots, secondary backspatter additionally occurred as a result of droplets produced by a stream of blood from the entrance wound impacting the paper surface.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users