I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

As someone with the same qualifications as you, per YOUR definition, and YOUR request, you will now be "peer reviewed:" You are NOT qualified to make the above statement.

How odd... a peer review where the reviewer criticizes the researcher instead of his work. 

 

[Micah Mileto]

On 10/20/2018 at 5:43 AM, David Von Pein said:

I don't think he did. That type of vision is reserved for a guy named Superman.

Anyway, do you think Bennett had a tape measure with him when he estimated where the bullet entered the President's back?

Bennett was guessing. Simple as that.

Under what circumstances could Glen Bennett lie about seeing a back hole on 5:30 PM 11/22/1963?

[Tom Neal]

On 11/10/2018 at 3:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

How odd... a peer review where the reviewer criticizes the researcher instead of his work. 

 

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.

[Tom Neal]

On 11/10/2018 at 1:08 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know what you are talking about

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 argued over the definition of what is, and what is NOT a theory.

What you propose is NOT a single unified theory describing the ENTIRE trajectory. It is actually two separate theories: 1. a supersonic bullet traveling from an unknown origin on a trajectory angle that you can't specify, grazes the skull, follows its curvature (constrained by the presence of the scalp) upward (putting it on an increasingly more horizontal path). Your "explanation" is that "bullets do this." This is your theory #1 which refers to only a small section of what is required to prove a theory that claims to explain a rear head entry/front throat exit. You have a 2nd theory that begins in the vicinity of the throat wound, eliminating any explanation as to how the bullets horizontal trajectory becomes a  vertical trajectory, and from the head, travels to the level of the throat wound, then breaks off a "long slender bone fragment" and in the process achieves a horizontal trajectory as specified by Malcolm Perry. Other questions,  such as 'Where did this bullet go?' will be addressed only after trajectory #1 is explained or dismissed as unexplainable.

A bullet that is virtually "spent" is unable to pass through the scalp due to lack of energy and its path is constrained by the skull and scalp. However, this is a supersonic bullet that has "grazed" the skull losing little velocity in the process. Is it your contention that the energy of this bullet was nearly spent by a GRAZING collision? Or, is a supersonic bullet incapable of passing through the scalp?

The above argument was presented to you, and your anguished response was that 'bullets do this' and you 'haven't worked out all the details yet.' The above is NOT a detail, it is an OBVIOUS disregard of (or ignorance of) the laws of physics! If you incorrectly state that e.g. 3+2=223, and I point this out to you, you regard this as a "personal attack" and attack me rather than explain why you are correct, or admit that you made an error. Your explanation defies the known laws of physics, so either explain HOW it does this, or WHY it does NOT defy known physics. Failing to do this, or claiming that you 'could figure this out' but are now interested in "other things" leaves your theory #1 *busted*.

Let's take one thing at a time. It's pointless to continue on to additional issues until you answer the question posed above. Explain how this supersonic bullet follows the contour of the skull, rather than continues on its pre-impact trajectory, altered SLIGHTLY in angle of depression and velocity by a GRAZING collision with the skull.

If you can explain this without evading the above issue, I will continue refuting what remains of what you refer to as a theory than explains the back head entry/throat exit...

For me, this is not a contest with a winner and a loser. In this case, it is an attempt to understand how the throat wound occurred. If anyone spots a flaw in my reasoning above in the case of ONLY theory #1, please point it out and we can discuss it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

[Your earlier head-wound bullet trajectory theory has] an OBVIOUS disregard of (or ignorance of) the laws of physics!

There seems to be an inconsistency in your line of argument, which I'll explain here:

In 1958 Oswald had two severely tipped molars and a large gap left behind from a tooth extraction. Within five years those defects had resolved themselves. The x-rays show this to be the case.

I claimed that this violated the laws of physics because there were no forces applied in a direction that could straighten the teeth up.

In response you said that I am not qualified to make such a claim because I am not a dental expert. And then you change subjects and said that an earlier theory of mine -- regarding a bullet trajectory through the head -- is wrong because it violates the laws of physics.

My question for you is this: Why do you think that I need to be a dental expert to make my laws-of-physics claim about the teeth, but you do NOT need to be a ballistics expert to make your laws-of-physics claim about the bullet trajectory?

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Explain how this supersonic bullet follows the contour of the skull, rather than continues on its pre-impact trajectory, altered SLIGHTLY in angle of depression and velocity by a GRAZING collision with the skull.

 

First, I want to point out that there is testimonial evidence that the bullet did what my hypothesis says it did when it first hit the skull. 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.

I believe it was Lt. Lipsey who testified that the autopsists were adamant that the bullet entered near the base of the skull (he referred to the location as "the top of the neck," my paraphrase) and exited the throat. One of the technicians (possibly Lipsey again) testified that at one point the autopsists had a probe running from that location to the throat wound.

A tangential strike would have required the bullet to come from high above the head. My hypothesis has it coming from the west end of an upper TSBD floor. Kennedy couldn't have been too far from the building for a strike to be tangential. He must have been hit while behind the Stemmons sign in Zapruder... any time before that and we would have seen him getting hit, and any time after that a tangential hit would not have been possible IMO.

My hypothesis has the bullet fragmenting on impact.  This (along with the tangential angle) could explain why the bullet didn't just penetrate straight into the skull.

Momentum is conserved in a collision, whether the collision is elastic or not. So it is a particularly useful tool in understanding inelastic or complex collisions. (In contrast, with the conservation of ENERGY principle you'd have to account for friction, etc.) Kennedy's head got some of the momentum and the fragments got the remainder.

Smaller fragments, with their small momenta, would have been substantially less likely to penetrate the skull. Upon impact, fragments typically go in different directions and the smaller ones give up their kinetic energy quickly due to friction.

I just came across this document:

https://archive.org/stream/HouseSelectCommitteeOnAssassinations/Volume 7_djvu.txt
 

Dr. Humes first mentions the tunneling on page 251, and then it is discussed among the medical experts panelists beginning on page 254. Dr. Davis, hypothesizes:

I think perhaps what we can consider is the problem of the tangential striking bullet which enters the head, tunnels — and that’s already been testified to, and it seems reasonable — strikes the bone tangentially, fragments, and then one part of a fragment can skip out through the scalp again, which may explain this wound we see here in enlargement No. 16.

....So I think all of us who have done a fair number of investigations like this are well aware that a bullet can split into fragments and one fragment can be deflected outward, another fragment can be deflected inward and slightly upward, and even a third fragment can go straight. There’s all sorts of things can happen with bullets when they strike in this manner.

So at least Dr. Davis envisions what I do in my hypothesis.

 

[Tom Neal]

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 it retain the majority of its pre-grazing impact velocity?

I'll continue AFTER you answer these SIMPLE questions.

I invite anyone to respond to ANY of the above questions, as this post-impact velocity determines whether tunneling could occur or not.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

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 believes this shot is the same shot that fatally damaged his brain, but the weight of that brain at autopsy was greater in mass than average? You know, the shot that you and everyone but LNs (and all 3 autopsists) believe came from the front? Humes got this shot completely wrong, but his "tunneling" statement MUST be true in your eyes... Is that because we can TRUST ALL of his testimony?

You state that a "tangential" strike at the EOP would produce the tunneling you describe...according to Dr. Humes and someone who agrees with him. Do you now believe the fatal headshot came from the rear as Humes swears? What about the back wound that was moved upward to claim it was the entrance wound for the throat? Humes believes the SBT. Humes (in contrast to the 4 doctors who operated on JBC) states that ONE bullet caused ALL of JBC's wounds.Humes stated that the back of the head was intact! Do I have to list ALL the lies Humes has testified to mark him as either totally incompetent, or the guy they picked to falsify the autopsy to support all shots from the rear? Yet you state that he got the tunneling part right.

Larsen said: "My hypothesis has the bullet fragmenting on impact.  This (along with the tangential angle) could explain why the bullet didn't just penetrate straight into the skull."

So you and Humes must believe that 1 shot from behind created both wounds. You believe that a bullet traveling tangentially ("just touching" according to you) the skull on a downward trajectory, sent the majority of fragments UP into the skull and others DOWN below the skull. So...a fragment that broke off a supersonic bullet, immediately encountered the scalp but was unable to punch through said scalp and was forced upward along the curve of the skull (which is actually ROUND for a considerable distance, shedding velocity all the way) from the EOP on a scraping trajectory that was turned more and more horizontally. It then passed from the posterior side to the anterior side of the cervical vertebrae (causing no discernible damage but incurring velocity loss) and somehow assumed a vertical trajectory downward due to an encounter with an unspecified bone (how much velocity would be lost in the turn?). At the level of the trachea, the frag somehow changed its trajectory to horizontal (as stated by Malcolm Perry) tore the trachea across 1/3 of its diameter passed through some soft tissue, passed through the skin (7 layers?) and tore a vertical slit through two doubled layers of shirt and ran completely out of energy when it encountered the necktie.

The "up" fragments penetrated brain tissue as denoted by the great number of metal specks depicted on the x-rays. They ran completely out of energy before reaching the front of the skull. Yet the "down" fragment performed the above trajectory as  stated by Larsen, losing energy all the way from EOP to necktie. If that isn't enough to make you laugh out loud, remember this: the fragment traveling at supersonic speed could not punch through the scalp, but after performing all the scrapes, turning 2 corners and tearing the trachea, it punched through the skin of the throat, which is tougher than the scalp, and then through 4 layers of cloth! Despite all these velocity losses, it had to now be traveling faster than it was at initial supersonic impact in order to pass through the skin of the throat. This supersonic fragment was then brought to a complete HALT by penetrating 4 layers of cloth. It didn't touch the tie...

I have left out the fragment breaking off a "long slender bone fragment" (which made a round 1/4" exit hole) from an specified bone at an unknown location which managed to remain stable (pointy end first) all the way from the torn trachea to the necktie because it has no origin in this tale and is even less likely to perform the magical trajectory than the bullet fragment. Said bullet fragment should be present near the trachea. I'd like to see some evidence that it didn't vanish from the body.

Possibly Ray Meachum will comment on this bone fragment as he did when this theory was originally posted.

Larsen said: "A tangential strike would have required the bullet to come from high above the head."
Yes, VERY high above  the head, but HOW high? Why didn't you simply calculate the angle of the line that is tangent to the EOP? That would give you the required trajectory. Instead, you just said "high above the head." I did it in a few minutes, but I know you won't believe me because that trajectory can't be done from the TSBD,. The TSBD angle is mentioned in numerous documents along with the distance to the Stemmons sign, so you don't even have to calculate them or believe me. I'm sure you would expect me to do this simple calculation if I made this claim and you disagreed with me. You post your numbers and then I'll post mine.

Larsen said: "My hypothesis has the bullet fragmenting on impact.  This (along with the tangential angle) could explain why the bullet didn't just penetrate straight into the skull."

You need to talk to your buddy Prudhomme who supports your theory. He knows like I know, that fragmenting bullets do NOT fragment upon impact with bone. He must have stated this fact 20 times. I never heard you disagree -- in fact you used to agree! They have an opening in the tip that allows fluid and soft tissue to enter. The bullets speed compresses this matter which forces the bullet to break up. Obviously, Humes is unaware of this fact.

Again, you mention the tangential angle. WHY do you assume this angle can be achieved when it takes only a few minutes to calculate the trajectory angle? It is almost as if you don't want to know... Aren't you eager to prove this "theory" would work?

[Ray Mitcham]

On 11/17/2018 at 3:44 PM, Tom Neal said:

Possibly Ray Meachum will comment on this bone fragment as he did when this theory was originally posted.

 

Tom, if you mean me, I think you have  the wrong poster. I don't ever remember mentioning a bone fragment.

 

p.s. It's Ray Mitcham.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Tom Neal]

8 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Tom, if you mean me, I think you have  the wrong poster. I don't ever remember mentioning a bone fragment.

p.s. It's Ray Mitcham.

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't break up when they impact a 0.27" thickness skull.  Frangible bullets don't break up upon impact with bone. They require blood or soft tissue to increase their internal pressure which causes the bullet to fragment. So what caused the bullet to fragment?

At this point, the fragment tunneled along between the scalp and skull. i.e. This supersonic fragment could not penetrate the scalp (These same mass fragments passed through brain tissue for the full length of the skull causing severe damage...), yet this same scalp provided enough force to push the fragment into a circular path! Supersonic bullets do NOT tunnel, however virtually spent bullets can.

If a bullet fragments into a hundred equal pieces, then EACH piece travels at the full bullets velocity. However, it retains 1/100 the mass of the original, and therefore only 1/100th of the total energy. Note that this small but tenacious fragment managed the following Odyssey... Next, this lone fragment (the other frags were propelled upward into the brain and visible on x-rays) traveled through the cervical vertebrae creating no damage, turned from a horizontal trajectory to a vertical trajectory, created a long slender 1/4" diameter pointed bone fragment off an (unknown bone) traveling with enough energy to tear the trachea, pass through tissue, skin and 4 layers of shirt.

1. a tangential trajectory to the EOP is impossible to achieve from the TSBD which Larsen has chosen as the bullets origin, thus tunneling can NOT occur
2. neither FMJ nor frangible bullets frag upon contact with bone, thus NO fragments
3. supersonic bullets or fragments do NOT tunnel; if the bullet tunneled then it had virtually no energy and would have stopped in a short distance
4. a tunneling bullet is scraping along the skull losing energy from friction, this fragment however retains or increases its energy
5. the trajectory of a fragment tunneling along the skull becomes horizontal at the base of the skull
6. no explanation as to  how this fragment turns from a horizontal trajectory to vertical and retains energy
7. No damage to C1, so how does the fragment get from posterior to anterior of the spine, and it would lose velocity
8. no explanation as to how the trajectory turns from vertical to horizontal (see Perry's statement re trajectory)
9. how is this 1/4" diameter long slender bone frag created?
10. from which bone did this originate?
11. how did a small bullet fragment (after completing this journey from EOP to trachea) retain enough energy to propel a 1/4" diameter bone frag through trachea, tissue, skin & cloth?
12. why is the propelling frag not visible embedded in whatever bone the frag came from?
13. Note the size of the largest frag visible in brain tissue; compare the mass of this bullet fragment to the mass of a "long slender" 1/4" diameter bone fragment
14. How did a small frag that could NOT puncture the scalp at supersonic velocity, have enough energy to propel a bone with a larger mass to a velocity that tore the trachea, and punctured the skin (much tougher than scalp).
15. The above statement neglects the velocity losses from EOP to skin, and proves more velocity was required at the END of this journey than Larsen claims it could have add when it failed to penetrate the scalp!

If anyone would like to refute any of 1-15, please do so. My goal here is seeking the truth by eliminating falsehoods.

If anyone would like to AGREE with ANY of the above, please do so.

Having received no responses, I conclude there is NO INTEREST in this subject, so unless there are comments this is my last post on this subject...

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/14/2018 at 4:47 PM, Tom Neal said:

As usual, you have avoided answering the "tunneling" question as it relates to your alleged throat exit.

I didn't ignore your question. You asked me to:

"Explain how this supersonic bullet follows the contour of the skull, rather than continues on its pre-impact trajectory, altered SLIGHTLY in angle of depression and velocity by a GRAZING collision with the skull."

And I replied in this post:
 

Apparently you weren't satisfied with my answer.

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/14/2018 at 4:47 PM, Tom Neal said:

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 it retain the majority of its pre-grazing impact velocity?

I'll continue AFTER you answer these SIMPLE questions.

 

I have no experience with gunshot wounds, so I can't give a "rule-of-thumb" answer. But maybe I can use physics to come up with a reasonable approximation.

I'll use the law of Conservation of  Momentum to derive the final velocity. To those unfamiliar with this, it means that the momentum before a collision is equal to the TOTAL momentum after the collision... that is to say, the sum of the momenta of all the moving objects, e.g. bullet fragments, the head, etc.

The momentum of an object is calculated by multiplying its mass by its velocity. Let's say that the mass of the bullet is 10 grams and its velocity 800 meters per second. It's momentum would be:

p = m v = 10 x 800 = 8000

("p" is the variable used for momentum instead of "m" since mass already uses that letter.)

So the momentum before the collision is 8000. This total momentum after the collision must also equal this number. Problem is, we can't predict without a computer simulation whether or not the body will move, nor how many fragments there will be and what speed and direction they will each move. So for the approximate velocity Tom is asking for, I will have to make some assumptions.

Let's suppose that the bullet hits the skull, and the deformed and/or fragmented bullet sticks to the skull. To simplify the problem further, let's pretend for now that Kennedy isn't holding his head up with his neck muscles. Because if he were doing that, we'd have to take into account the momentum of the neck and body. For this approximation I want to deal only with Kennedy's freely-moving head, as that is a manageable problem.

The mass of a head is about 5000 grams. The bullet adds 10 grams to that after the collision. But since 5000 grams is only an approximation anyway, let's ignore that additional 10 grams. Plugging the momentum and mass into the formula we get:

p = m v

8000 = 5000 v

Solving for v we get v = 1.6 meters per second.

So at the point the bullet first makes contact with the head, it will be traveling at a velocity of 800 meters per second. But by the time bullet has deformed and/or fragmented, it and the head will be traveling at only 1.6 meters per second.

Now, had the bullet broken through the skull and come to rest inside, instead of sticking to the outside surface, the final velocity would be the same. It just would take a bit longer for the bullet to decelerate to 1.6 m/s.

If we factor back in the neck and body, those body parts would have taken up some of the momentum, thus slowing the head and bullet down somewhat.

Therefore, my first-order approximation to Tom's question is this:  Somewhat less than 1.6 m/s.

Now, Tom asked for the approximate velocity of the bullet "AFTER the grazing impact," not after it stuck itself to the back of the head. It is impossible to give an answer to that without knowing some specifics. For example, suppose the bullet hits at such an obtuse angle that is merely skids along the skull and barely slows down. In that case the bullet would be traveling close to the original 800 m/s because it won't lost much energy due to friction or anything else.

On the other hand, suppose the bullet breaks through the skull, (as in my first-order approximation) but a tiny fragment remains outside, skidding along the skull and tunneling between the scalp and skull, and down through he neck. That fragment could conceivably be traveling down the neck at ANY speed less than 800 mt/2, depending upon precisely how and when it fragmented. (In addition, it initially will move along with the head in its direction at <1.6 m/s.)

Therefore, my second-order approximation to Tom's question is this:  Between 0 and 800 m/s depending upon precisely what happened to the bullet upon impact.

I have a feeling that Tom will reject the notion that the bullet or fragment could have moved at any speed in that range. But I have given two extreme examples that show this to be the case.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/17/2018 at 8:44 AM, Tom Neal said:

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!

No, I didn't choose not to answer your question. I chose to prepare for the holidays and tend to some responsibilities before answering  it.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

On 11/21/2018 at 11:30 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't ignore your question. You asked me to:

"Explain how this supersonic bullet follows the contour of the skull, rather than continues on its pre-impact trajectory, altered SLIGHTLY in angle of depression and velocity by a GRAZING collision with the skull."

And I replied in this post:
 

Unapparent you weren't satisfied with my answer.

 

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, which shot is JFK reacting to when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?

How does a bullet from the TSBD graze the EOP? The trajectory is FAR too shallow. If it didn't "Graze" the EOP why didn't it penetrate the skull like the front shot did?

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

You quoted Humes. He lied about everything, and is a LN.

I agree that Humes lied. But I don't agree that he lied about everything. I can't think of any reason he'd make up a 6 mm x 15 mm grazing wound out of whole cloth.
 

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

He fails to explain HOW this happened, he just states that it did.

So what? He was a doctor, not a ballistics expert.

 

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

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.

It could be a case of faulty memory. Or it could be that he thought the bullet first struck at the top of the 15 mm x 6 mm scalp wound, tunneled for that 15 mm, and then entered the scalp there, below the EOP.

I can't think of any reason he'd change his mind and move the wound down intentionally.

I think you protest too much.
 

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

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.

Hume's wasn't an expert autopsist, but he certainly knew how to identify a wound.

 

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

If a fragment from the Head Wound caused the throat wound, which shot is JFK reacting to when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?

He's reacting from the EOP head-shot. And perhaps also from the back wound. Or so my hypothesis goes.
 

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

How does a bullet from the TSBD graze the EOP? The trajectory is FAR too shallow.

How do you know that? (Note that the bullet wouldn't have to graze the EOP because it hit to the right of it (and above).)
 

21 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

If it didn't "Graze" the EOP why didn't it penetrate the skull like the front shot did?