Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tom Neal

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tom Neal

  1. On 11/19/2018 at 1:18 PM, 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 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 wound is an entry wound, and I don't recall if you've taken a position as to exit/entry wound.


  2. 22 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

    Tom, if this quote is proven to indeed be from Kinney and accurate, ( " I put that there" ) what are we to make of this astounding statement?

    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 bullet actually fired at JFK? Was he planting fake evidence? Too many possibilities... Whether any of this is true or not, Kinney IMO took a LOT of vital info to his grave.


  3. 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    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.


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


    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.

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


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

    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).)

    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 can't think of any reason he'd make up a 6 mm x 15 mm grazing wound out of whole cloth.
    To explain the throat wound as an exit wound to disprove any front shots. One of his MANY lies.

    LARSEN: It could be a case of faulty memory.
    Right. He's testifying to a Congressional Committee about the controversial murder of the President but he didn't bother to consult his own notes per WC testimony. One little mistake... The xxxx with the "faulty memory" is the perfect choice to defend your "theory."

    LARSEN: I can't think of any reason he'd change his mind and move the wound down intentionally.
    It doesn't support your theory, so per your SOP, I'm sure you can't. As I recall, you believe that Humes "moved" the back wound up to align it with the throat wound as does everyone but LNs. However, you can't think of any reason why he and others would try to move the throat wound down to accomplish the same requirement...

    Also, it shallows the trajectory angle of any shooter to make the "tunneling" sound slightly less impossible... This is lost on you because you've already proven you don't understand why this matters, even though it is SIMPLE Geometry.

    LARSEN: I think you protest too much.
    Pot calls kettle black. ALL you have done is protest, cite liars and pretend irrelevant "calculations" prove your "theory" and refuse to explain a dozen reasons why your "theory" doesn't work.

    LARSEN: Hume's wasn't an expert autopsist, but he certainly knew how to identify a wound.
    ONLY if it fit in with the LN lie. How many times did the WC and HSCA disagree with his findings? e.g. His wound location was off by 4." Before you defend Humes by calling THEM liars, they were liars also. Q. Which liars should we believe? A. The one that you believe supports your theory. Don't blame me, that's what you did...

    LARSEN: He's reacting from the EOP head-shot.
    According to you the front head shot threw him violently backwards, but his head didn't move at all when hit in the back of the head? For this to happen, the bullet could only have lost slight momentum or his head would have noticeably moved - it didn't. Therefore the bullet retained at least the majority of its momentum and punched through the scalp following it's initial trajectory almost exactly.

    LARSEN: And perhaps also from the back wound.
    Is the same type of "delayed reaction" that explains JFK and JBC different reaction times when hit by the same bullet? Or do you believe the back and EOP shots occurred simultaneously?

    LARSEN: Or so my hypothesis goes.
    You've never mentioned many things that are now part of your "hypothesis"...

    For anyone who doesn't know; your "hypothesis" / "theory": A bullet tunneled along the bottom of the skull, broke off a long slender bone fragment which tore the trachea, exited the throat through a ROUND hole, tore long VERTICAL slits in the shirt, exited the body and vanished without marking the necktie.

    According to Larsen this is HIS theory that the throat was an exit wound, resulting from a shot to the head. Per the above, he makes no attempt to explain the majority of his "alleged" trajectory. If I gave directions from point A to point B, but left out the majority of the turns, then I did NOT give directions from A to B. Larsen had two theories: 1. a bullet tunneled between scalp and skull. 2. a bullet or fragment broke off a piece of bone that cut the trachea, passed through the skin and the shirt but stopped at the necktie

    He fails to describe the entire trajectory, does not even connect  theories 1 and 2, but insists his theory is how he gets from gun to vanished bone...

    Larsen has now included the origin of the shot as the TSBD  and the EOP impact point.

    If you accept the trajectory from muzzle to post scalp tunneling then you don't know simple geometry, and the following questions remain unanswered:
    1. where does the tunneling on the skull terminate?
    2. how could it have enough energy to follow steps 2-9 ?
    3. what event turns the frag from approx horizontal trajectory to vertical?
    4. where and how does the frag get from the posterior side of the cervical vertebra to the anterior?
    5. what damage does this cause and where is it located?
    6. where and how is this 1/4" diameter bone frag created?
    7. how and where is the trajectory turned from vertical to horizontal (as described by Perry)?
    8. why does this bone frag align itself (in 2 dimensions!) along its trajectory pointy end first?
    9. how could a frag that did not have enough energy to pierce the scalp have enough momentum to tear the tough trachea, tissue, skin and shirt?

    According to the forensic and medical texts, for a gunshot to the head, penetration of the scalp is a second-order difference when calculating bullet velocity. That means it is such a SMALL number that it has no effect on the conclusions drawn from the velocity results. Larsen however states in his "extreme" examples which he claims denote the upper and lower limits of his "hypothesis" within which, his theory allegedly works, that the scalp deflected the bullet upwards! The front shot bullet punched through scalp & skull, fragmented, and the frags traversed the majority of the brain. A shot to the rear would do the same.

    The front shot did NOT pass through the center of the brain. This proves that the bullet struck the skull at an angle rather than perpendicular. i.e. If perpendicular, a line from the muzzle to the wound would extend to the center of the skull. An impact at the SAME point at e.g. a 30 deg angle would not. Despite Larsen's protestations a shot from the TSBD (at a specific range) to a specific point on the head can be achieved at only ONE trajectory angle whether you refer to elevation or azimuth.

    LARSEN: 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).)
    Wow. You REALLY don't get this do you? You picked the EOP impact reference, not me. There's nothing magical about the EOP - above below center left right it doesn't matter as far as a doable elevation angle. You still can't get a "grazing" trajectory. 

    You cited Humes. He said above, he said below. Did he say right? Now you are stipulating that it was absolutely ABOVE and RIGHT. So Humes does NOT support your notion because we don't know which answer is what he believes. Do you actually believe this alteration allows your "hypothesis" to work? It doesn't change the reasons why it doesn't work, but what is your source that the impact was above & right?

    How about rebutting my dozen or so statements?

  4. On 11/21/2018 at 2:44 PM, Sandy Larsen said:


    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.


    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 do. In your notion there would be no fragment outside the skull to "tunnel." Once again, you have chosen to ignore this along with a dozen other arguments against your "theory."

    Where is your evidence that the bullet would decelerate from 800 m/s to 1.6m/s at impact? There is no relationship between your calculation and how much velocity would be lost. How do you explain a supersonic rifle bullet penetrating the skull from the front but stopping and "sticking to the outside surface at the back."? How does a TSBD bullet hit the EOP at an "obtuse angle"? You are STILL ignoring simple questions.

    Per SOP you are ignoring your own "theory." I don't blame you. How does your 1.6 m/s bullet retain enough ENERGY to reach and pass through vertebrae, make a turn from horizontal to vertical, break off a bone fragment which cuts the trachea, passes through the skin and 4 layers of cloth. This is a requirement for your "theory." Again SOP, your are supposed to be proving your theory, but your conclusions DISPROVE your theory.

    LARSEN: "Between 0 and 800 m/s depending upon precisely what happened to the bullet upon impact."
    Your conclusion is the bullet lost somewhere between ALL of its velocity and NONE of its velocity. i.e. There is no possible way to draw any conclusions, so your "theory" MUST be true.


  5. 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?

  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. 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...


  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 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?

  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 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.

  10. 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.


  11. 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.  :P


    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. 6 hours ago, Mark Lawson said:

    It was hard for me to imagine liking the CIA less than I did at the time I began reading this book, but that has indeed been the result.  Winston Scott himself has turned out to be someone I find extremely hard to admire, and many of these players seem to me more adept at blatant criminality - hidden, or at least protected by, "color of law" - than they are at gathering and analyzing actionable intelligence.

    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 hours ago, Mark Lawson said:
    "The peculiar truth that Win's conservative political faith could not absorb was that it was the impeccably patriotic Dulles, Helms, and Angleton, not deluded liberals, who blocked investigation of Oswald's communist connections, and his friend David Phillips who fudged the record.  They stalled, avoided, and dissembled in the course of the Oswald investigation not because they were soft on communism, not to avoid offending liberal public opinion, but out of self-preservation...." p. 279

    This above paragraph succinctly summarizes the entire book! Given my piecemeal reading, anyway...

    Given their personal version of "patriotism," I have fully expected at least several of the conspirators to have PROUDLY confessed their roles in the assassination via deathbed confessions, and posthumous declarations. At the present time, only E. Howard Hunt has come close, talking without revealing his personal role. He does name higher-ups, but this could be disinformation at best. IMO, Hunt was likely present in DP during the assassination, but for what purpose? According to Tosh Plumlee, Hunt was flown to Dallas as a member of the "abort team," and I DO find Plumlee credible.

    5 hours ago, Mark Lawson said:
    If you have not already read Morely's 2017 tome on James Angleton, The Ghost, I recommend that you read it prior to diving into Our Man in Mexico.

    This has received top reviews and although not yet purchased, *is* on my list. With retirement I'm attempting to reduce my voracious book purchasing. 😥 I'll take your advice, read this first, and IF properly inspired, *may* give "Our Man" a full reading...

    THANKS for taking the time to post such a helpful review!


  13. On 10/27/2018 at 1:20 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

    Oswald's 1958 Marine Corps x-ray shows two molars tipping down into the space left by the adjacent molar (#30) being extracted. And then the exhumation x-ray -- which is a snapshot of how the teeth looked in 1963, only 5 years later -- shows that these two teeth had spontaneously straightened back up again, moved forward about 1/4" in a straight line, and filled in the same space they were previously tipping down int o.

    Now, I -- as an EXPERT with a masters degree in engineering -- know that such a thing would have been impossible to occur spontaneously, because there are no natural forces that could have moved the teeth to the positions shown in the exhumation x-ray. The use of an orthodontic appliance would have been required to apply the necessary forces to accomplish what is seen to have happened between 1958 and 1963.

    So, unless there are other engineers, physicists, or orthodontists on this forum who have scrutinized that particular presentation, then that claim of mine has not been peer reviewed.

    <<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 qualifications, I do not consider myself an expert in this area. Were I to make your claim, I would seek the opinion of a dentist, orthodontist or other professional. As Mr. Parnell stated, and I agree, this is not something you do. You declare your own personal research as all that is necessary ...

    In our MANY disagreements, I have presented text, diagrams, and photos from actual Medical School text books, statements from professionals in the appropriate field with decades of experience, and offers to put you in touch with these professionals. However, you have stated that your personal qualifications plus un-referenced photos/line diagrams, and text you have found online prove you are unquestionably correct, and the knowledge of actual experts is useless in comparison. Exactly as you are doing in this post.

    In the real world, a "peer reviewed" paper would be published in an appropriate *professional* journal after being reviewed and accepted by professionals qualified in that field. An online site where anyone can comment can hardly be considered identical to a professional journal where *every* statement therein must be confirmed by experts.

    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.

    Let the personal attacks commence...

  14. 8 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

    ...and I now realize that DVP has maintained these videos on his YouTube channel. Both segments are worth watching, and each are just a few minutes in duration.

    So, courtesy of DVP, the WFAA segment can be viewed here, starting at 2:07:25


    The CBS segment is found here, starting at 1:19:20


    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 misfire. Why the blatant change? IMO, this new false story was required because a gun that misfired is not an acceptable weapon to fire five shots into JDT. The fiction that LHO murdered JDT so he MUST have assassinated JFK had to be maintained.


  15. 16 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

    ...evidently from the hammer of the gun as it came out of his belt. And as it was coming out he snapped the trigger of the pistol which misfired, luckily.”

    Missing from McD's story on both interviews is his later claim that he PREVENTED the gun from firing, by placing his hand in a position such that the flesh between his thumb and forefinger would interfere with the hammer and prevent the gun from firing. However, Paul Bently initially made the claim that he himself did this. No witness reported Bently having contact with LHO, so this was dismissed. A previous poster (Craig) mentions this is a procedure taught at the Police Academy. A likely presumption is that McD did this for two reasons:

    1. the appearance that he performed better/smarter than he actually did
    2. a misfiring gun makes it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that LHO had just shot JDT multiple times!

    It has been stated that this gun had a bent firing pin and was incapable of firing. However, IIRC the official examination did NOT report this.

    LHO proclaimed his innocence at all times. Thus, they certainly SHOULD have asked him WHY he punched the cop, and pulled his gun at the theater. There is no record of this.

    Q&A transcripts frequently reveal the following:

    1. questions whose answers would not fit the required LHO-acting-alone pattern are NOT asked
    2. the subject is quickly changed if any response heads off in an unacceptable direction
    3. answers that do not fit well with the question asked, STRONGLY indicate editing of the transcript to mask unacceptable statements
    4. due to ignorance, the questioner himself doesn't grasp the significance of the question and/or the answer and therefore fails to ask followup questions

    Due to the above, the "Negative Template" must be utilized. i.e. Questions not asked, and altered responses indicate reality more clearly than the actual questions and answers as stated.

    IMO, LHO probably did NOT pull the gun himself, and the 'multiple hands on the gun' scenario only occurred *because* McD suddenly grabbed the gun from LHO's waistband/belt. Depending upon "why" he thought he was being arrested (e.g. cop-killer???) LHO *may* have believed McD was about to be murder him with his own gun...accidently, of course.


  16. 14 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

    ...but the segment in the Texas Theater was filmed with McDonald for the CBS Warren Report special which was broadcast later - in September 1964


    Thanks for the additional info -- especially the quotes. The exact wording helps immensely.

    Presumably, McDonald was filmed for this Report within a few months of the 09-1964 broadcast date. Given McD's proclivity for self-aggrandizement and the obvious hyperbole and bias of these CBS special reports, I expected the WFAA 11-23-1963 interview to differ significantly from the 09-1964 re-enactment. However, based upon your post I see no obvious alterations.

    Do you have the videos? If so, thanks for taking the time to transcribe the dialog!


    BTW, is it no longer possible to display the HTML code for editing???

  17. 53 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

    The following day, DPD officers staged a recreation of the arrest for local television. The scuffle, as portrayed, did not feature anything like a shooting attempt or even a deliberate punch. It showed  officers converging on the suspect and initiating contact as the suspect rose from his seat. I would suggest that the punch and the shooting attempt were embellishments developed after the fact.

    Hey Jeff,

    This "recreation" is unknown to me - - thanks for your post.

    Is this something you saw yourself? If not, is there documentation regarding the actions depicted? Did it show the cop hitting LHO? When asked about the cut/bruise on his face by a reporter, LHO stated "A policeman hit me," he further stated 'I deserved it,' or something similar. If this is depicted then it's a good indicator that the reenactment was accurate.

    Any additional info is greatly appreciated...


  18. 17 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:



    Oswald didn't pull his gun. McDonald did.

    From McDonald's after-action repot

    DPD Archives Box 2, Folder# 7, Item# 32




    Steve Thomas

    Thanks, Steve.

    I used the word 'allegedly' because many people DO believe he tried to shoot McDonald. According to McDonald he prevented LHO from firing the gun, but I don't find MacDonald credible, so I'm not convinced. The cops SHOULD have searched LHO for weapons when he was apprehended. I believe that the gun was discovered at this time, and McDonald grabbed it. Even if LHO was in fear of his life, would he have tried to shoot McDonald? Due to the number of police near him, I'd say no. He had no chance to escape and would only increase the chances of being killed by the police. So I'm not entirely convinced that he actually did "go for his gun..."

    OtOH, he DID punch a cop which lends credence to him actually attempting to shoot McD. My only thought is that due to his fear of being killed, he panicked and hit the cop.


  19. 1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

    Did you kill the President?
    No, I have not been charged with that.  In fact nobody has said that to me yet

    First I heard about it was from the newspaper reporters in the hall "ax" me that question

    "You have been charged"  'scuze me?  "You have been charged"....

    Yup. This matches what I said in my earlier posts. I'm certain he wasn't aware any earlier than this that he was the patsy for the JFK shooting - nobody's that good of an actor. Nice of them to film it for us. For once we actually know what occurred...

    But why did he punch the cop and allegedly pull the gun in the theater when he didn't expect to be tagged for JFK's shooting? I can't come up with any reason other than he was informed of, or a participant in, the murder of JDT. And I don't believe LHO killed Tippit. So, was he aware that the JDT killing was planned and assumed that it happened, or did he know? If he knew, how did he know? Was he connected to JDT himself, or others in the DPD directly, or via Jack Ruby?

    BTW, I'm ignoring the Lee or Harvey aspect of all this as it gets too confusing and whatever was originally the subject gets lost in the "Two Oswalds" debate. I'm only referring to the person arrested at the theater and locked up by Dallas PD, so it doesn't matter if this person was Lee. Or Harvey. Or Lee Harvey Oswald.

  20. 2 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:



    Bob Carroll was one of the Detectives who brought Oswald back to DPD Headquarters from the Texas Theater.



    "Mr. BALL. After Oswald had been handcuffed, did he say anything?
    Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; as we were bringing him out of the theatre, he hollered that he was going to protest this police brutality. I believe those were his words - the latter part - "Protest the police brutality" were his exact words. The rest of it was what he had done and that he hadn't done nothing and stuff like that.
    Mr. BALL. Did he say he hadn't done anything?
    Mr. CARROLL. The best I remember that was it - after we had him in the car. We were coming down to the station and he said that he hadn't done anything and he said, "I did have a pistol and I know that that's wrong, but I haven't done anything." That's the best I recall of what he said."


    K.E. Lyon was also one of the policemen who rode in that car back downtown. In his after-action report, Lyon wrote,

    “Enroute to the City Hall, Oswald refused to answer any questions, and he kept repeating, “Why am I being arrested? I know I was carrying a gun, but why else am I being arrested?””

    DPD Archives Box 2, Folder# 7, Item# 29



    In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Will Fritz said pretty much the same thing.

    I'm guessing Oswald didn't know what he had been arrested for until his arraignment at 7:10 that Friday night.


    Steve Thomas


    Thanks Steve,

    This is excellent sourced info. I did recall that on the ride to HQ he asked why he had been arrested, but not the details you included.

    As I stated earlier, I'm still surprised that he didn't shout out "Why am I being arrested?" when initially apprehended. This is an indication of guilt, so why wait until he was in the police car? He handled the later interrogation so well this seems an unlikely oversight, unless he feared from the moment the cops arrived that he would be executed by them. Given his execution two days later by Ruby, this is a reasonable assumption. The above requires him to have know that JDT had been murdered. How did he know?


  21. 1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

    Since our Ozzie is not aware of the killing of Tippit, (and he can't really think this reaction was for sneaking into a theater)

    we MUST remember that if he had any contact with RUBY and friends, (after Bannister et al in New Orleans) he had to be thinking guilty thoughts..

    If he was aware of any of the goings on at the TSBD.... seemed to know that he was on the right side of this thing when all along he was set up

    That he says he is a "patsy" is enough for me to understand his awareness of a plan against him...  He never says the words "I'm innocent"...
    does he?

    Being arrested almost immediately after the assassination due to connections to Ruby, Bannister, et al (particularly if he did so at the behest of FBI/CIA) is quite an unlikely coincidence. Not something he expected to result in 'murder by cop.' However, if he knew about JDT he knew he was a cop-killer...

    How convinced are you that LHO was unaware of the JDT murder when he was arrested?

    I agree he was aware of something important, whether it was the assassination plan, or JDT, but WHEN did he realize he was the designated patsy.?

    FWiW, he DID say, 'I didn't shoot anyone.'


  22. 5 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said:

    Let's back up a minute Tom.

    When Oswald was approached in the theater and asked to stand up, he jumped to his feet and punched a police officer in the face. Oswald then pulled his revolver and attempted to shoot that same officer, (McDonald I believe). Luckily McDonald used a technique that was still being taught when I was in the academy. He stuck the web of his hand between the cocked hammer and the backstrap of the revolver which prevented the firing pin from striking the cartridge. A scuffle then ensued, and Oswald was handcuffed. 

    It wasn't until Oswald emerged from the theater, which was surrounded by people, (bystanders, media people, and other police officials), that he then proclaimed, "I am not resisting arrest!". This has been verified many times by eye witnesses in the theater at the time of his arrest. During a video taped interview one witness in particular, Johnny Brewer, the man who observed Oswald enter the theater without buying a ticket, recalled that when he heard Oswald make this claim he laughed to himself thinking, "You're not resisting arrest now.".



    Craig C. 


    Thanks for the response. I presume your intention is to correct my statements regarding LHO's apprehension in the theater. However, if your comments are meant to alter my analysis of 'what did LHO believe at the time,' no offense intended, but I don't see the relevance, so please elaborate. 

    There are many versions of this event which have been stated by witnesses, both theater patrons, employees and law enforcement. You are repeating Nick McDonald's version of the events. There are strong arguments that McDonald is not a reliable witness. His story evolved to depict him as more and more heroic as time went on, and he was criticized by his fellow officers due to his reputation for 'embellishments' and strong tendency to tell 'stories' rather than stick to the facts. Personally, I don't find him especially credible.

    There are also substantiated statements that the  wrist of the hand that was holding the gun was handcuffed, but 'said wrist' was that of a fellow officer. This occurred during the struggle for the gun, not after if had been taken away from LHO. Of course it's possible that he didn't get the wrist with the gun... This also would be the time to plant the 'real gun' on him (speculation!), but nothing is certain here except that LHO did punch a cop. He even admitted it. Whether he shouted "I am not resisting arrest!" inside the theater or outside is irrelevant to my question. Either way, my point is that he clearly feared being murdered by DPD. Again, in my opinion this is a strong indication that LHO was aware of JDT's murder and as a "cop-killer" he was in mortal danger. Later that evening he was shocked to discover that he had been charged with JFK's murder, so it seems unlikely he thought he would be killed for that.


  23. I'd like to present a question that doesn't necessarily pertain precisely to the "Two Dallas Cops" topic, but does involve the DPD and the deeper plot. I've asked this before on this site without getting a response, but those who are participating in this thread seem to have the knowledge required to at least speculate.

    When LHO was arrested in the theater, he shouted "I am NOT resisting arrest!" Obviously, he knew his life was in danger -- -- but *exactly what* did he think he was being blamed for doing? He seems to have realized that he was the patsy fairly quickly, but what action/event was the catalyst for his realization? He appeared shocked later in the day when he learned from a reporter's question that he was accused of shooting the President.

    Did he believe he was being arrested for the murder of JDT, and that was why he feared for his life? If so, unless he had pre-knowledge of JDT's murder or was the actual killer (I don't think he was...) how would he have known anything about JDT?

    Why didn't LHO challenge the officers who arrested him at the theater by shouting "Why am I being arrested?" The evidence indicates that he knew WHY he was being arrested. But he did maintain his innocence throughout the next two days, so shouldn't he have at least PRETENDED ignorance? By NOT asking why he was being arrested, he is tacitly admitting that he knew he was guilty of some type of crime.

    Any comments are highly welcome...


  • Create New...