Robert Prudhomme

Would you care to expand on "the bit about cerebellum comes from Assassination Science"? That sentence hardly qualifies your statement about cerebellum resembling macerated cerebrum, which, of course, it does not. If you really wish to embarrass yourself on medical evidence, be my guest. I'm more than willing to accommodate you.

P.S. Manchester also quotes William Greer (limo driver) apologizing to Jackie at Parkland Hospital. He is quoted by Manchester as saying, "I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it! Oh Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it, I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time! Oh!"

If we are going to quote everything Manchester wrote as 100% factual, we need to examine this quote from Greer. While many witnesses saw the limousine swerve to the left (and stop) there is no evidence of this in the Zapruder film, nor does the WC support this belief.

Is Manchester misquoting Greer? Or lying?

P.P.S. And just what was the "it" Greer wished he had seen it time? And how would swerving be an effective way of avoiding "it"?

From Pat Speer:

"Well, actually, macerated cerebrum does give the appearance of cerebellum."

LOL!!! Where did you come up with this gem, Pat? Is this some kind of nonsense from John McAdams' websites? This is almost as good as you not knowing that the centre portion of the occipital bone extends above the level of the ears. I noticed you seemed to ignore my pointing out that little factoid, didn't you? Seriously, though, cerebrum and cerebellum look nothing like each other, regardless of how much you macerate them. You either know, as I pointed out earlier, absolutely nothing about anatomy or you are deliberately attempting to mislead readers.

"And, not only that, it seems reasonable to assume that doctors saw cerebellum in part because they were expecting to see cerebellum--no, not because they thought the wound was LOW on the back of Kennedy's head--but because they thought the bullet causing Kennedy's neck wound had deflected upwards and exploded out the top of the back of his head. Such a trajectory--and this could hardly be a coincidence--leads through the cerebellum."

What a complete joke this is, Pat. This is the sort of bizarre logic one would expect of Gerald Posner.

The Dealey Plaza witnesses were all in a state of shock. Also, how many of them got more than a second or two to observe the head wound?

P.S. The Babushka Lady saw matter coming from the back of JFK's head.

Walks like an LN, talks like an LN......wonder what it is?

"9. When Charles Crenshaw's book came out, and claimed the Parkland doctors knew the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, but were hushed into silence, McClelland sided with the other doctors and denounced Crenshaw."

Can you show us an interview or something giving us McClelland's exact words he used to denounce Crenshaw, Pat?

If, between Parkland and Bethesda, it had been only a small percentage of witnesses describing a back-of-head wound, we could dismiss the whole thing as witness error. Also, the size and location of the wound would vary greatly, as well. How do you explain the majority of witnesses, both at Parkland and Bethesda, describing a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

He does look good, John, and he does not seem to have any trouble separating "fact from fiction".

Walks like an LN, talks like an LN.....wonder what it is?

"Mr. Specter - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss Bowron - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. Specter - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss Bowron - The back of his head.

Mr. Specter - And what was that condition?

Miss Bowron - Well, it was very bad --- you know.

Mr. Specter - How many holes did you see?

Miss Bowron - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. Specter - Did you see a bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss Bowron - No, sir.

Mr. Specter - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss Bowron - No, sir."

P.S. You obviously don't know the first thing about anatomy, Pat. In the centre of the back of the head, the occipital bone extends well above the level of the ears.

If we went by the Zapruder film, there should have been a bag like protrusion hanging over JFK's right cheek.

Why is this not visible in the autopsy photos?

I don't see how Hill is making the wound more frontal/side than in the right rear. To quote Clint Hill:

"In the same instant, blood, brain matter and bone fragments exploded from the back of the president's head.....and splattered all over me---on my face, my clothes, in my hair.

Mrs. Kennedy scrambled out of her seat, "because there were bits of the president's brain , blood and bone on the car's right rear and she was trying to retrieve them."

How do you deduce from these statements that Hill is making the head wound more "frontal/side"?

It would be a mistake to assume the back of the head was the location of the one and only large wound, if Tom Robinson did not out and out say this was the location of the one and only large gaping wound on JFK's head.

Okay, Pat, now give me some long rambling response that says absolutely nothing.

Quoting from Dr. Burkley's report of 27/11/63:

"His hair was combed in the usual fashion and his appearance in the casket gave no evidence of the injury he had received."

Pretty neat trick, considering we are supposed to believe the top and right side of JFK's head had been blown off. Stranger still, the mortician Tom Robinson only talked about closing up a large gaping wound at the back of JFK's head and no other large wounds.

Unfortunately, Dr. Burkley does not state the location of JFK's wounds in this report.

Burkley was not a witness at all. For some strange reason, the WC did not call him to testify.

Do you think James Young was lying, misquoting, exaggerating or misremembering when he made the statement:

"Dr. Burkley immediately evaluated the situation as hopeless as soon as he saw the gaping, bloody macerated huge wound and defect in the right posterior occipital area."

How can you be certain this was not described by Dr. Burkley to James Young?

Anyone seen Sean Murphy lately?

If the Tom Alyea film was a recreation, and this recreation was done prior to the Carcano rifle being taken to DPD headquarters, there is something desperately wrong with the clip in the Carcano rifle, as it is seen protruding part way out of the magazine in photos taken of it between the TSBD and DPD headquarters.

Considering that a normal Carcano clip simply falls out of the magazine AS the last cartridge is chambered, what magic force kept the clip in suspended animation, defying gravity, in the Carcano found in the TSBD? Defenders of the WC will maintain that the clip, designed as a discard following a one time use, had been used so many times, it was bent and would not fall out as it was intended. The fact of the matter is that a Carcano clip, bent that badly, will also not function as a normal clip and allow a shooter to chamber cartridges. However, a normal empty clip can be inserted from the bottom of the magazine and it will jam quite nicely and require manual extraction to remove it.

"Dr. Burkley immediately evaluated the situation as hopeless as soon as he saw the gaping, bloody macerated huge wound and defect in the right posterior occipital area."

Another witness clearly points to the wound being in the right rear portion of JFK's head.

Hello James

As you feel that JBC received his chest wound at z230, do you feel the same bullet caused his wrist and thigh wound, or do you feel they were caused by another bullet and, if so, at which frame would that shot have been?

The people have spoken.

**bump**

Perhaps I am not making myself clear on this matter. I have caught an FBI agent perjuring himself to the Warren Commission. This is not a "feeling" or a "belief" but hard indisputable mathematical facts. And, as far as I know, I have not seen another person mention this indiscretion before.

By Frazier's own calculations, the bullet recovered from the Walker residence is too small to have been fired from a 6.5 mm Carcano and Oswald is exonerated of the Walker shooting. Are we not just a little excited?

From 1964 :

The fourth sentence is only partially true.

It is really simple. When a rifle barrel is made, the maker first drills or "bores" a hole from one end of the rifle barrel to the other. The diameter of this hole becomes the "bore" or "calibre" of this rifle. In the case of the 6.5x52 mm Carcano, this measurement is 6.5 mm or about .255".

The next step in making the barrel is to cut spiral grooves in the hole drilled through the barrel, creating what are known as "rifling grooves".

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaTZzCixvp-pYBwCdnM3gySCh77z_QNXPzyW7XsQSVx6SrJ4tcgg

As can be seen in this diagram, the rifling grooves create raised sections called "lands" and, of course, grooves. The measurement from the bottom of one groove to the bottom of a facing groove is the "groove diameter" AND is equal to the diameter of the bullet itself. In the case of the 6.5 mm Carcano the groove diameter and bullet diameter are .268" or about 6.8 mm. The measurement from the top of one land to the top of a facing land is the "bore diameter", .255" or 6.5 mm in the 6.5 mm Carcano.

When a bullet is fired down a rifle barrel, the lands cut grooves into the soft material of the bullet jacket. In doing so, they cause the bullet to spin and this gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight.

The 6.5 mm Carcano has four rifling grooves and, subsequently, four raised lands. These will leave a perfect mirror impression of themselves on a fired bullet. If one measures the width of the land and groove impressions left on the bullet, it is possible to extrapolate these figures into a circle with eight arcs (four lands and four grooves). By adding the arcs together, it is possible to arrive at the measurement for the circumference of the bullet and, dividing this by pi (3.1416) to obtain the diameter of this bullet.

This is what SA Frazier has attempted to do with the Walker bullet, only he has made a serious mistake. The width of the four lands, at .07" each, add up to .28". The four grooves, at .13" each, add up to .52"

.52 + .28 = .80"

In other words, the Walker bullet has a circumference of .80". To find the diameter of the Walker bullet, Frazier divides .80" by pi (3.1416) and comes up with a bullet diameter of .267", which is the correct bullet diameter of a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet (.268" actually).

However, if we divide .80 by 3.1416, the actual answer is .255", which is, surprise! surprise! the bore diameter of a 6.5 mm Carcano rifle.

What Frazier has done is mistakenly think he needs to arrive at the figure of .255" for the diameter of the Carcano bullet and has filled in the land and groove figures to allow him to arrive at this number, when the real number he needs to arrive at is a diameter of .268".

If what Frazier is saying is true, Walker was shot at by a smaller calibre rifle than a 6.5 mm Carcano rifle.

And I post a thread showing where the FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier makes a major mathematical screw up regarding the bullet recovered from the Walker residence, and not ONE response to it. The level of research into the JFK assassination has slipped. But, by all means, let's post more movie reviews about the crap out of Hollywood on the assassination.

Reading over the WC testimony of FBI SA Robert Frazier, I came upon this passage. He is testifying as to their attempts to identify the mangled bullet recovered from General (retired) Edwin Walker's residence. The WC and SA Frazier are doing their very best to tie this bullet to the alleged rifle of Oswald, the 6.5 mm Carcano.

"Mr. Eisenberg.

Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.

The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.

The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch."

Sounds impressive, doesn't it? SA Frazier even has the proper bullet diameter for the 6.5 Carcano bullet of .267" (.268" actually) as opposed to the typical bullet diameter of .264" for all other 6.5mm/.257 calibre rifles.

However, let us check his mathematics out. He tells us the land widths are .07" and the groove widths are .13".

.07 + .13 = .20 and, as there are four of each, .20 x 4 = .80" as the circumference of the bullet.

Diameter is found by dividing circumference by pi so .80 divided by 3.1416 = .254"

Uh oh, it seems SA Frazier has made a slight mathematical error here, arriving at the answer of .267" instead of the correct answer of .254". Or is it more than that? Guess what the figure .254 corresponds to?

Believe it or not, .254" is the bore diameter of every 6.5mm rifle. This measurement is taken from the top of one land in the barrel to the top of an opposing land, as opposed to the Carcano groove diameter of .268", measured from the bottom of one groove to the bottom of an opposing groove.

Could Frazier have been conducting that worst form of science, where the answer is predetermined and the data is altered to match it?

Good morning!