Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tom Neal

Members
  • Content Count

    933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tom Neal

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/12/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Orlando, FL

Recent Profile Visitors

3,099 profile views
  1. Hello Again Ray, A member PM'd me that he remembers the exchange and your comments. He sent me a link to two posts, but the link didn't work. I tried to make one also, but my link didn't work either. The first post was in the "throat shot" thread and the second was in Prudhomme's "Back Wound Revisited (Again)" thread. The first thread comments are as I stated, and in the 2nd thread you state 'I still don't see how a bone fragment can make a round hole in the throat and a slit in the shirt.' James Gordon then posts several times in agreement with you... IIRC Gordon believes the throat wou
  2. Hi Joe, I posted this because if Kinney's statement is true, the bullet he placed on the cart could be Hall's bullet. About a decade after Kinney died, his friend and neighbor released a story to the media purporting to be info from Kinney that Sam wanted released after his and his wife's deaths. IIRC Kinney also stated that one or two shots "came from the front." This guy was a good friend of Kinney, and he didn't have anything to gain by lying as far as I can see. What he says is probably true, and I wish a reason had been given for leaving the bullet on the stretcher. Was it a bulle
  3. LARSEN: I agree that Humes lied. But I don't agree that he lied about everything. You believe that Humes lied many times, but NOT about the thing that supports your case... LARSEN: So what? He was a doctor, not a ballistics expert. Agreed. Even by your stated qualifications for "expert" status" he's neither a ballistics expert, nor a gun shot wound expert, but he IS a PROVEN xxxx, and LN! Yet you cite him as your ONLY proof that your "theory" is viable. You would NEVER accept him as proof against your theory, but anyone who appears to agree with you is beyond suspicion. LARSEN: I c
  4. LARSEN: "But by the time bullet has deformed and/or fragmented, it and the head will be traveling at only 1.6 meters per second." You're right, you have no experience with gunshot wounds and your calculations are irrelevant as proof of your theory. Where is your evidence that the bullet would be "deformed" or "fragmented" when it made contact with 1/4" skullbone at 800m/s? No ballistics/forensics/medical text agree with this. The real front shot bullet did not fragment due to impact with the skull, it fragmented by hydraulic pressure AFTER it passed through the skull, as it was designed to
  5. You quoted Humes. He lied about everything, and is a LN. He fails to explain HOW this happened, he just states that it did. He also had to change his statement to HSCA from his WC statement: He told one that the wound was above the EOP, the other that it was below it. That's a SERIOUS change for someone who worked on the actual body. If you accept his word on this without explanation, then you have to accept ALL of his statements. How many autopsies on a gunshot victim had Humes performed prior to this? Hardly an expert opinion. If a fragment from the Head Wound caused the throat wound, whi
  6. A statement attributed to Sam Kinney (SS driver of followup car): 'People have been wondering about it [The bullet on the cart] for years.' "I put that there." He did not mention how he acquired this bullet, nor why he put it on the stretcher rather than report it. Hall states that she's never seen this bullet as evidence in the assassination. So this wasn't the "magic bullet" and the description by the guy who actually found the bullet on the stretcher doesn't mention the 1 1/2" length, but does say that it was pointed.
  7. Hello Ray, Glad to see you're still posting! Sorry about that..I was going from memory and got your name wrong. And apparently your comment. This was in regard to Larsen's statement that a long slender bone fragment (from an unknown bone) broken loose by a bullet fragment on a vertical trajectory was propelled "pointed end" forward on a horizontal trajectory, and remained stable from its point of (unknown) origin until it stopped at the neck tie. He offers no explanation as to how the bullet which TANGENTIALLY impacted the skull at the EOP then fragmented. Full jacketed bullets (FMJ) don
  8. Mr. Larsen, I see you have elected once again to NOT answer my SIMPLE question. I've only asked for an approximation, so it can't be too tough for an "expert" in Physics! Larsen said: "The autopsists testified before the HSCA that a bullet hit near the EOP tangentially, penetrated the scalp, and tunneled under the scalp for a ways." "For a ways" - you can't argue with such a precise measurement at that. At least you have finally come up with a location for the impact point and admit for the first time that a tangential strike was necessary... Are you stating that Humes beli
  9. As usual, you have avoided answering the "tunneling" question as it relates to your alleged throat exit. Let's take it one step at a time: Your "theory" stipulates a "grazing" impact of a supersonic bullet with the skull. Choose ANY impact velocity you like, and answer ANY of the following questions: What was the approximate velocity of the bullet, AFTER the "grazing" impact? If you won't answer this question, then how much velocity was lost in the impact? If you won't answer either of these questions, then post "grazing," was the velocity of the bullet spent, nearly spent, or did
  10. No, you don't. That's why you miss the point of the post, and take everything as a personal attack. You don't remember this, because you dismissed it out of hand. Specifically, I referred to your 'back of the head entry wound/throat exit' that you insist is a "theory." To call this a 'back entry/front exit' theory you have to get the bullet from the rifle (point A) to your 'slender bone fragment" exiting the clothing, necktie included (point B). You have no explanation for the majority of the trajectory. i.e. You can't get from point A to point B. Rather than admit this is a requirement you
  11. The above is a personal criticism of me, and misstates my premise. SOP for you. The reviewer (me) criticized your belief that physics qualifies you to make unquestionable statements regarding dentistry. Show your engineering degree and demand certification as a dentist. If you prefer to believe that is a personal criticism, then abide by your OWN rules.
  12. Normally, I make every effort to extract the character of the person from his actions, and especially the actions of his associates due to his behavior. This requires paying close attention to every word and reaction. Given the era, Scott's blatant racism and ultra-conservatism was no surprise, nor was its easy acceptance by his minions. Due to this fact, I could not force myself to evaluate him dispassionately. I chose to skip over his personal life and the nuances of his character, carefully reading only the text pertinent to his and his stations role in the assassination and coverup. 5
  13. << I have just completed a long and exhausting slog through Jefferson Morley's Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA. >> Hi Mark, This one's on my list -- now that you're done, was it worth the "long and exhausting slog?" Tom
  14. <<LARSEN: Now, I as an EXPERT with a master's degree in engineering ... because there are no natural forces that could have moved the teeth.>> You have stated you have a Master's in *electrical* engineering. As I happen to have one of these also, what "natural forces" exist that could move teeth was not covered in the curriculum and your claim that this makes you an "EXPERT" in this area is absurd. As far as the intrinsic physics involved, my Masters in Aeronautical and Astronautical engineering included far more physics than did my electrical engineering degree. Despite these q
  15. Thanks for these links, Jeff. Surprisingly, I actually have both videos in my archive, and they are from DVP. Your timestamps saved me from searching through hours of video. You are absolutely correct, they are worth watching. In the 'day after' video, McDonald not only doesn't describe how his clever hand placement prevented the weapon from firing, he clearly states the gun "misfired." In contrast, a year later for CBS he demonstrates the entire process in response to the interviewers statement that the gun "misfired." This demo is preceded by McDonald's statement that the gun did NOT
×
×
  • Create New...