Tom Neal

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Tom, I'll submit to you, The "Deep State' isn't a bunch of old generals and spies who long for the days of the Cold War and would like to resurrect the Russians as their whipping boy.They're not letting Trump "indulge in his greed". They're jumping on the gray train! These aren't some dark,twisted old  guys who do nothing but plot war. But they will finance and profit from war. These are bankers and financiers. They're into everything!

I don't know why you think that's what I meant; I said "The powers that be." I certainly didn't mean the CIA or "old generals." They are the ones that take the orders from the ultra-wealthy. They do NOT call the shots, and never have.

The MICC (meaning those who profit by war or the threat of it) needs a boogey-man to keep a military force almost greater than the rest of the world's forces combined. This includes the oil companies as well as the Fed, Wall St. etc.

As far as "The" cold war, we have the one against "communism" that started before WWII ended, and the one that was escalated by Reagan against the "Evil Empire." War hasn't gone out of style, and a cold war with Russian isn't a case of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Reagan effectively started a new cold war after Detente was murdered. You think it couldn't happen again???

Do the military contracters want 'peace' with Russia? Do the "bankers and financiers" not profit from cold war as well as business dealings with Russia? Can you have business and cold war simultaneously? Americans do not support another ME war, but another cold war with beloved Reagan's evil empire? People still believe life in the USA under Reagan was the best it has ever been. Why not do it again?

Does Congress want to lift the current sanctions against Putin, or increase them? If they want to escalate and drops wants to drop them altogether and embrace Putin then he's putting himself in an unsafe position. IF on the other hand, Congress wants to do what Trump wants to do about Russia, then there is a marriage there for Trump.

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

That would be an interesting prospect if Trump was to step so out of line that he was impeached by his own party, but I don't think so. He has the perfect globalist, multi national corporate banner they love with just a few kinks in it.

"Perfect?" If true, then *why* was Trump so strongly opposed by his own party? He's hardly their "darling" even now. Do professional politicians REALLY want billionaires to replace them in the WH? Trump put Ted Cruz out of a job. If Trump were impeached that would be a warning to anyone else, and they would still have a Republican president. They would play it as they heroically did what was best for the U$A and impeached their own man. They can say that the people elected him, and point to video clips stating that they never wanted him.

The only man to become POTUS without being elected as P or VP was Gerald Ford. The forced resignations of Nixon and Agnew hasn't done the Republicans any lasting harm.

Trump will go too far, because like the scorpion, that's who he is...

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 Obama apparently thought enough of this threat that he felt it necessary to assemble Intelligence, law enforcement and Congressional leaders in September to reveal the scope of the Russian hacking and propose a united front against it. Mitch Mac Connell said if Obama was to go public, he'd declare the White House was tampering with the election, so Obama backed down.

McConnell opposes literally anything and everything that BO does, so I'm finding it hard to belief his threat to cry election tampering was enough to make BO "back down." Particularly, when he had the intelligence community backing him up. It's already been said that BO didn't do enough about Russian tampering, so as expected he was damned if he do, and damned if he don't. And he's a lame duck - what did he have to lose?

What was the reaction of the majority of Congress to BO's proposal of a united front?

8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I am, however interested in seeing this fourth branch of invisible government dismantled and it just may happen.

Michael,

Thanks for your response, and I SINCERELY hope you are correct. Nothing would give me greater pleasure that to be dead wrong, but I foresee another victory for the "invisible gov't." As controlled by the owners as the media was in the JFK era, since Reagan forced them to become entertainment and propaganda driven only, our sole hope is the internet. Trump's rednecks are not online, and would only go to Fox News sites if they were. The gov't is elected by the masses who *choose* ignorance over facts. Until the other half of the voters acquire some knowledge of how things *actually* are done we have no hope of changing the current system.

Greed runs the U$A, and about half of the voters are OK with it as they too are addicted to money.

Bernie sat down with Wisconsin voters post election and asked why they voted for Trump. They believe that "maybe" Trump will bring bank jobs to America. Right. What about every one of Trump's companies that use only overseas labor? Not going to happen. As dishonest as the average politician's campaign promises are, with Trump they ain't seen nothing yet! They will eventually realize they have been had, but will continue to make the same mistake as their ignorance makes them gullible.

Trump is not a business man, he's a con-man. He's made, and lost, his fortune by screwing over the competition and not paying his debts. He won't fare well doing this to China for example, as we will continue to need their money. His notion that "we just won't pay them" what we owe is born from a lifetime of doing just that in his business dealings. I predict his impeachment, but that is far from a happy ending.

With Hillary we would have had a liberal Supreme Court and the power to make changes that are desperately needed. With a Republican president we will have a Republican Supreme Court for many years to come who will exacerbate the current already unacceptable situation. With control of the WH, the Supreme Court AND Congress what possible change 'for the better' could come from this administration?

PLEASE convince me I'm wrong - - I need *some* hope...

Has any new hacking info appeared since the original DNC hacks? I don't think so - yet, when the release of info that Putin was helping Trump get elected could have hurt his election chances, there was virtual silence from the media and the intelligence services. During the debates, Hillary was clear that the hacks were designed to hurt her, yet that got no traction. Now that Trump is assured as the new POTUS the word is that Russia definitely hacked the election for Trump. If the intelligence services were against Trump they would have come out with this before the election.

Like the Kennedy assassination, it isn't the intelligence community making the decision, it's those who intelligence answers to - and I don't mean Barack Obama... Do they want Trump in general, or just his intentions to once again escalate the military? Why bring the hacking up now unless they simply want to kindle Cold War II which was so profitable without the death count of the Iraq War? Trump, on the other hand, wants to drop sanctions and do direct business with his sponsor Putin. Isn't it now Trump-Putin v. US intelligence?

Does Trump owe money to China? Does he think that igniting a cold war with China will allow the US to refuse to repay its debt? Is he trying to create a new enemy to take the heat off Putin?

With the full knowledge that Russian did in fact hack this election and that their hacking certainly hurt Hillary, and her dramatic win in the popular vote, why is no one questioning Trump's "victory" in a 'tampered with' election? Imagine the Republican reaction if Russia's hacking favored Hillary. What are the Dems doing right now? Once again, "The Powers That Be" have decided who Trump will be President.

Bottom line, Trump is only interested in making money for Trump. This POTUS gig is for his ego, and his wallet - nothing else.

If Trump does what the real powers want, they will allow him to indulge his greed. If Trump doesn't follow orders (he won't!) the Republican Congress will impeach him, and the party will install a Cheney-like VP to keep bible-thumper Pence on track.

How convenient. Run off and hide.

The problem can't be solved. BS

I don't have time for details. BS the majority of your trajectory is non-existent, yet you call it a detail.

You know more than me about ballistics and physics, but won't state your credentials.

You know more than author's of forensic textbooks. You ignore the overall intent of the statement and the obvious context to make it sound incorrect. Anyone who questioned the statement that wanted the truth would have asked for additional information. Not you: "This is wrong." Then you tell me I know it, too.

I know you make statements that you haven't even investigated, but demand they be accepted as the last word.

I know you accept your own answers over someone elses when you don't know who's more qualified to determine the correct answer.

i.e. You're so full of it in so many categories why should anyone accept anything you say?

BTW, despite the fact that you include Speer and Prudholmme as co-believers in your "theory", NEITHER one of their ideas includes the "bone fragment" that is the crux of your "theory-without-the-details." You stand alone on that. At least Speer shows a complete trajectory, and Bob has actually added some information to his claims. You got "nothin."

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Something I never said.

Here is what I really said, and I quote:

"The deflection angle of a straight on bullet is 180 degrees! If the bullet doesn't penetrate the target, it will deflect right back toward the gun if there is any kinetic energy left after all loss of energy, e.g. due to bullet deformation."

I won't be replying to any more of Tom's crazy claims about me or what I've said.

And that was in response to MY statement that it DID. Your statement is totally irrelevant.

Stop posting bullxxxx, and no one will have to respond.

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No Tom, I blamed you for YOUR mistake. You accused me of changing Nurse Bowron's story, when in fact I said absolutely nothing about anything she had ever said.

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Something I never said.

Here is what I really said, and I quote:

"The deflection angle of a straight on bullet is 180 degrees! If the bullet doesn't penetrate the target, it will deflect right back toward the gun if there is any kinetic energy left after all loss of energy, e.g. due to bullet deformation."

I won't be replying to any more of Tom's crazy claims about me or what I've said.

You posted the statement. You didn't add a disclaimer. That's not my mistake - it's yours.

Bob P.

You asked for the quote and the info. I posted it. No response? Not even an acknowledgement?

This thread has turned into the standard "Larsen bullxxxx festival" so I'm no longer wasting my time with his nonsense.

You stated that your dog was smarter than a named forum member. This same member has gotten the better of Larsen. Thus your dog is also smarter than Larsen...

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

More TOTAL BS.

A bullet that perforates the skull is not deflected 180-degrees - it isn't deflected at all. You've decided that it bounced off - not perforated.

The book statement is entirely true. It's not referring to a deflection of .01 degrees, it's talking about a size that makes a difference. The deformation of a grazing bullet is not going to matter at all, when the total deflection is less than one degree, and the REQUIRED angle change is 20 degrees.

The statement is referring to a bullet that strikes a bone. The bone is not strong enough to deflect a bullet any appreciable angle without breaking. A piece of paper will deflect a bullet but to a degree that is irrelevant. You of course ascribe properties of a nearly spent bullet that can be deflected, because it has little momentum to a bullet traveling 1500 mph.

Your statements as to how difficult this problem is to solve are true IF you need an answer to the 3rd decimal place which I've already pointed out is not needed. Again, if you need a deflection of 20 degrees (actually more than 40...) and a demonstrably greater force produces less than one degree of deflection that is proof that a precise calculation is UNNECESSARY.

Considering your statements here, I have to ask, just what are your math and physics education and experience that allows you to make these sweeping statements with 100% confidence?

You won't put down your trajectory because it would take too long? Ridiculous. Your average post is 10 times the length of a description of your trajectory:

1. a bullet (either FMJ, fragmenting, or something else) strikes JFK's head at an angle I don't know.

2. this projectile strikes somewhere between above the EOP and just above the base of the skull, but despite my intentional never-ending comments about precise terminology, I will still refer to it as an EOP entrance.

3. this projectile on a downward traj curves toward the horizontal against its momentum to follow the curvature of the skull as it tunnels under the scalp. Yes, I'm saying that this 1500 mph projectile doesn't perforate the scalp, the scalp forces it to alter it's trajectory.

4. Somewhere this traj changes to an almost vertical trajectory (I don't know how, why, or where on the skull this happens)

5. Somewhere a bone fragment breaks loose (I don't where or from what) and this bone exits the throat wound).

6. Sometimes I mention a vertebra sometimes I don't, but I don't which which one(s). Worst case only slight damage is reported to a vertebra, but it deflects a bullet or a bone or something from almost vertical to horizontal. The problem is impossible to calculate to it must be the way I want it to be.

7. This long thin bone fragment stabilizes point first despite it's center of mass at the middle of the bone fragment and its center of pressure (I don't know what that is or how to calculate it but I saw it online) at a position that would turn it perpendicular to its velocity vector. I don't mention that this long thin bone has the thickness of a whole bullet or it couldn't leave a wound that every doctor and nurse at Parkland designated a *bullet* entrance - later *bullet* exit. I've been told this, but it's wrong because it isn't what I want - Perry stated that they considered that a bone fragment from the head wound MAY have exited the throat. They quickly dismissed this because "a secondary missile does not normally acquire that much velocity." I say this wasn't "normal." Of course, Perry states they dismissed this idea which is proof positive that nothing was abnormal, or they wouldn't have dismissed it. What do all the doctors know? I know better...

8. The bone fragment tears the cartilage of the trachea, continues on a straight line through subcutaneous tissue and layers of skin, tears a 1" vertical slit in the shirt, pushes the tie aside with the same point that tore trachea and flesh without leaving a mark or a blood stain, and finally with all of its velocity spent, it dribbles out of this exit, and falls never to be seen again.

9. I don't know what happened to the bullet itself. Why didn't it follow the path of the bone fragment? With it's higher velocity, smaller frontal area, and higher density it should have traveled further than the bone. If it didn't exit, where is it?

Okay. I just saved you all the time you don't have. Add the 3 trajectory angles, the origin of the bone fragment, and what happened to the bullet.

If you have been too busy to figure out the above then without these you have as BP says "Nothing." Yet here you are still offering your "theory" as the best solution.

Even Arlen Specter came up with a complete trajectory for his "magic bullet." You can't even do that.

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeez Tom, did you even read my post? It had nothing to do with Diana Bowron. Where did I say she changed her statement? I didn't. (Unless it was on some other thread a long, long time ago that I don't remember.)

P.S. I didn't type the words on the above BOH photo. I just borrowed the photo for a point I was making in my post. A point that has nothing to do with Diana Bowron.

Me? Did YOU even read your post? You state people who changed their mind, then post someone elses photo with Bowron's testimony. Why didn't you mention that despite what you said, the text about her was NOT true. You didn't state that wasn't your photo. How could anyone know? Then of course you blame me for your mistake!

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

SANDY: The plan was initiated by planting the fragment where the shots-from-behind narrative required it to be... ahead of the limo. From Bill Harper's description of where he found the fragment, we can see that it was sufficiently forward that it could be mistaken in no other way.

But now, according to your theory, we actually have the bad guys picking up fragments, sneaking them down 90 feet from Z313, looking around, and then dropping them in the grass or wherever?

Sorry to say, but as weak as my idea is here, yours is starting to sound like when Oddjob dropped the convenient golfball on the course like in the Bond film.  It's starting to get into the silliness section.

Starting to sound weak? Have you read his ideas about his long thin bone fragment taking it's amazing journey? That JFK was shot in the back by a person or a device hiding in the limo trunk? The back shot that was deflected off of nothing?

Forensic experts published in a standard medical text in a college medical library know nothing. He dismisses their statements as "wrong."

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom Neal said:

Bob, as I have repeated all of the above to you too many times to count, I don't know why you would ever accept this horizontal trajectory, but since you came up with an actual angle (42-degrees) for the first time and are looking for possible paths on a diagram, I'll share the above.

Obviously you haven't seen a tracheotomy performed. As I've stated before, I have. The above diagram only includes musculature, I have left off the subcutaneous layers and skin. The skin of the throat does NOT lie on top of the trachea, and the angle between the two wounds may be discerned.

Sandy, You used the term "tangential" yourself, if you don't like it, don't use it.

Note that I didn't say I object to using the phrase "tangential wound." I said we (plural) have to be careful using the word tangential with wounds because it might mean something different than what we might expect. For example, I've seen "tangential wound" used to describe the blowout at the top of Kennedy's head. Clearly a misuse of the word. As I read what you said in your post, I got the impression that your idea of a tangential wound is one from a glancing shot where just a tiny force is applied to the object being shot. I may be wrong, but I think that a tangential wound is one where the projectile hits at an angle and deflects (or skids) off the surface rather penetrating. The amount of force the projectile applies to the object can be considerable and it would still be considered a tangential wound because the projectile didn't penetrate.

IMO it is far more accurate in describing the wound than any other term used. A "tangential wound" is not the same as a tangent line in geometry, but we are referring to wounds, so how could confusion result? e.g. Kemp Clark's description of a POSSIBLE cause of the missing occipetal bone was a "tangential wound" caused by a bullet traveling parallel to the missing dish-shaped skull piece. The bullet would have struck one edge of the "dish" first and then the opposite edge, removing the piece of skull. Clark is using correct terminology, and I will continue to use the word "tangential" as it applies to trajectory and/or wounds.

I note that both you and BP are now stating that the skull deflection was only "a few degrees." That's quite a dramatic change from your previous beliefs.

I've never thought that the change in direction was great. (I do recall you characterizing my hypothesis that way.)

I've never given a detailed presentation of my hypothesis. I've only summarized my thinking. So I've never talked about degrees of deflection.

Read the statement in the upper left corner of my diagram, including the source. Now explain or produce a diagram of a bullet or whatever that hits the skull near the EOP, is deflected only a few degrees downward and hits the trachea at the wound location. Include a further deflection off a vertebra if you still believe that would produce the LARGE angle required.

That statement in the upper left corner of the diagram is wrong. If a projectile hits an object obliquely,  a deflection will occur in all but the most idiosyncratic cases. The only question is the degree of deflection.

For Sandy and Bob, you can propose all the VAGUE theories you want regarding deflecting bullets and bone fragments, but neither one of you has produced a trajectory from a shooter to skull, to bone to trachea to exit wound.

I've given rough ideas of the trajectories in my theory. Not rigorous to be sure.

If you can't do this, you don't have a theory or whatever term you want to use. Now Bob, if your 42-deg angle traj from skull to vertebra is also the angle from shooter to skull, where is the shooter located that would produce this trajectory? As an example, the line of sight from the 6th floor was 20 degrees.

If the angle from shooter to skull was on the order of 20-deg, what turned the trajectory from 20 to 42 degrees - scalp and skull shape? Scalp is not going to affect the direction of a high-velocity bullet, nor produce any noticeable velocity reduction. A high-velocity bullet on a downward trajectory is not going to follow the ascending curve of the skull. The force are all wrong here. The bullet would simply nick the skull (producing a hole in the scalp) and continue on its original trajectory.

Sandy/Bob, which impact produces the most force on the bullet - a shot parallel to the ground that perforates the skull at a 90-deg angle, or a shot on a descending trajectory that inflicts a tangential wound at the skull?

These forces are very difficult to solve. For example, in the case where the skull is hit straight on (90 degrees), how are you going to calculate the deceleration of the bullet upon hitting the skull? Deceleration depends upon a number of factors, like the resulting movement of the head, the flexing of the bone, deformation of the bullet, etc. And you need to know the deceleration in order to calculate the force (F = m a).

As a general rule, of course, smaller forces are involved in tangential shots.

Do the math, and it's not difficult in this case, to calculate the force of a direct head-on collision of bullet and occipital skull. Take this force ( F=mA, or even linear momentum) and apply it PERPENDICULAR to the velocity vector as it existed prior to the collision.

Despite the unquestionably GREATER force here, the original trajectory is altered by less than one degree. Thus, the tangential collision would produce a considerably SMALLER deflection angle.

Huh? If the straight-on bullet were deflected at all (because it didn't penetrate the target and didn't lose all its kinetic energy in the collision), the deflection angle would be 180 degrees! The tangential bullet with a smaller force would indeed produce a smaller deflection. But even, say, a whopping 20 degrees of deflection would be considerably smaller than the 180 degrees.

If the skull can't turn the bullet even a single degree, how much of a change in the angle could the impact with a vertebra produce? There is considerable disagreement if there was any damage to a vertebra at all, and no one has proposed anything more than slight damage.

No sharp turns were performed by any projectile PRIOR to the tracheal injury. Only bullets at the end of their trajectory, with velocity almost spent make sharp turns.

And this is why I don't post here.

I quote from a forensic book and Sandy Larsen says it's wrong - he knows better.

He ignores the main point of the post to continue to peck away at his personal definition of tangential which is completely irrelevant.

The forces are difficult to solve if you don't understand the basic physics. The movement of his head? Such a small effect as to be negligible. If you don't know how to calculate the acceleration in this case, then you need to go back to high school. I will no longer address you in this post.

Huh?

The straight on bullet is NOT deflected - I said TAKE the force from a straight on collision and apply that. Don't you even READ these posts?

You say you never posted your entire theory. I've been saying that forever. Why not? Because you don't have a complete path to report. It doesn't work and even though you claim you have an entire theory, you're AFRAID to post it because it doesn't work.

You also are convinced your theory MUST be correct, because of a GIF of JFK's shirt and tie pasted onto a DEAD body lying flat on it's back instead of sitting upright. If you had bothered to read the discussion of this, there are numerous statements that this cannot be done with the required accuracy. The photo used is not the original and has such high contrast it is almost a matter of guesswork to differentiate shadow from body. For example, the left shoulder of the shirt is aligned with the shadow of the shoulder, not the shoulder itself. This moves the shirt down at least an inch or two.

You cherrypick testimony, information, and refuse to post the full path of the trajectory you claim.

On 12/13/2016 at 1:16 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Because of this he is forced to cherry pick testimonies to bolster his case.

 

Cherry-picking?

You are cherry-picking Diana Bowron's testimony. She did NOT change her statement. Pat Spear did exactly what you do here, and Cliff Varnell caught him at every word. Go back and READ her testimony.

56 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

A must read for sure

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bigger-than-watergate-concerns-grow-that-anti-clinton_us_5850bb12e4b0b662c2fddebc

"MUST Read" is right!

FBI collusion sounds right to me...

12 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

1. Texas sharpshooter

 

2. Speer does not say it was literally 45 degrees, he says it was a strange coincidence that some described the bullet descending 45 degrees while such an angle from the throat leads directly to the EOP. Speer says it may have happened with a few deflections.

1. Relevance? Are you claiming that this shot was planned to occur as you suggest? If not, then degree of skill is not a factor. Why a "Texas" sharpshooter? Are they always better than shooters from elsewhere?

2. Fine. I was giving an example using his angle. Substituting a trajectory of approx 45 degrees changes nothing as 45 degrees is not the only trajectory that fails. Would any trajectory between 35 and 55 degrees be viable?

The only 45 degree statement that I recall was Humes analysis of the back entry wound trajectory. I believe he stated 45-60 degrees downward, but he also agrees that the same entry exited the throat - hardly 45 to 60 degs downward.

"A few deflections." Don't you find that rather vague as evidence that this event occurred or was even probable? Speer certainly indicates that it DID happen this way.

He also stated that it was a "low velocity bullet." How many rifles fire a "low velocity bullet"? Why would anyone who was determined to kill JFK fire a low velocity bullet? This STRONGLY implies the use of a handgun. To guarantee reasonable accuracy requires close range. A close range shot would produce a flatter trajectory and require an even greater deflection of the bullet.

16 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I'm just saying that the hypothetical EOP-throat wound connection has the bullet hitting a lot of obstacles at certain angles, so it would be difficult to map out if such a deflection is possible. There's evidence on the chest/neck x-rays of a downward track for the throat wound. Weirder things have happened.

Yes, it does require a LOT of collisions at certain angles. If you are familiar with the math of probabilities, the greater the number of requirements, the less likely it is to happen. For example, if three requirements exist and each has a 1 in 10 chance of occurring then the event has a 1 in a 1,000 chance of happening.

Also, if any *one* requirement can't be met then the event is impossible.

e.g. Speer's -45 trajectory angle from head to throat. What possible origin exists for a trajectory that would graze the skull at a 45 degree angle? For example the angle from the 6th floor was about -20 degrees. How much higher and/ or farther away would the shooter be to produce a -45 deg trajectory angle? This fact requires a LARGE deflection angle of the bullet. At high velocities this requires a LOT of force. A human skull would be penetrated by much less force. A tangential or grazing wound produces very little total force - the majority of which is along the trajectory. Very little force is available to deflect the bullet.

If you have the math and physics I can show you a force diagram depicting the above issues, and why a deflection angle of the magnitude required is not possible.

If anyone that believes a tangential collision with a skull can produce a deflection greater than a single degree, please jump in and show the math.

16 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Not only must we account for the deflection of a bullet hitting the EOP (which created a 15x6mm elliptical wound for some reason), but there is also evidence that the base of the skull was smashed, which can be interpreted as something of a "long lost exit".

Why did you quote my post yet not respond to the points I made regarding bullet deflection?

On 12/12/2016 at 1:59 AM, Micah Mileto said:

Not if it deflected a lot, which is what you'd expect from a bullet hitting that area.

WHY would it deflect "a lot" rather than punch a hole in the skull? The grazing blow everyone is proposing produces only a small force. A small force is not going to deflect a high speed bullet "a lot."

Anyone care to show the physics involved here? You know, equations and stuff like that. e.g. How much force would be required to deflect a bullet more than a degree, and could a tangential collision provide adequate force to produce a perpendicular component that would deflect a bullet significantly?

Sandy, you have an engineering degree; in a tangential collision, is the majority of the applied force *along* the velocity vector or perpendicular to it?

On 12/11/2016 at 4:16 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom,

You make a good point.

Based on numerous comments made by the autopsy docs, my understanding is that a bullet hole was found in the scalp but not in the skull. IIRC the dimensions of the hole was 6 x 15 mm, and it appeared that the bullet had skidded tangentially along the skull bone near the EOP, and actually appeared to have tunneled under the skin. This was mentioned in some testimony, at which point one of the commented that what they were about to discuss shouldn't be on the record.

The docs reported that the point on the skull where the bullet hit was on the margin of missing bone (what we call the Harper fragment), and the docs said they could see evidence of an entrance wound on that bone. (Yes, they did have the Harper fragment the night of the autopsy.)

Paul Seaton has collected several useful quotes regarding this topic:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/eop_entry/eop_desc.htm

Search for "tunnel" to see what I'm talking about.

This information supports the belief that I, Robert, and Pat share, that the bullet hit the EOP area tangentially, went down through the neck, and resulted in a missile of one kind or another exiting the throat.

 

Well thank you Sandy.

As I have stated repeatedly, a grazing or tunneling bullet MUST be on a tangential trajectory relative to the skull. Taking the EOP area and applying a tangential trajectory, measure the angle of depression. From what location could this trajectory be achieved? Is this a viable trajectory?

This alleged EOP wound was used as "proof" that the back of the head blowout was caused by an entering bullet which I don't think anyone but LNs believe. Where is the evidence of the hole that existed when the now missing skull fragment was placed into the opening? Should we believe the existence of this alleged hole?

Are you proposing that this bullet struck the edge of the opening in the skull and then tunneled? How does it do that? After entering the skull does bullet exit the skull and only then begin to tunnel?

Pat Speer states that the trajectory to the head to throat exit is only 45 degrees downward. He also states it was a "low velocity" bullet. So where was this gunmen firing from, and why would they send a guy with a pistol which would only work at close range (and no one noticed Speer's shooter) to kill JFK?

This -45 deg trajectory would place the tracheal wound ABOVE the throat exit wound. The distance between skin and trachea is enough that it would be noticeable. Did anyone comment about this as evidence of an ascending or descending trajectory? At the time of the tracheotomy they believed the throat wound was an entry wound, and the bullet ranged down into his chest. Does this fit with a shot from behind descending at a 45 degree angle when it exited the throat? How was the damage to the tip of the lung caused with this angle?

As I've already stated, BP fails to support his beliefs, yet insists I have nothing because I won't respond to his *demands* until he answers any of MY questions. By his own logic, he also has "nothing." WHERE is the evidence that the trajectory from trachea to throat wound was at a significant downward angle from back to front?

I'm no longer going to waste my time digging through my files for evidence that has already been ignored. Show me contrary evidence and it would be worth my efforts...

As I have asked many, many times of you EOP enthusiasts, what is the initial trajectory angle of a tangential strike at the EOP site? From what shooting location could this angle be achieved? Both of these questions have been totally and completed ignored, yet you can't have an EOP entrance, throat exit without them.

On 12/11/2016 at 1:22 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Translated: Tom has nothing to back up his statement.

Not requiring translation:

Bob doesn't follow his own rules, but requires other to, or he tells them to go away.
Bob has nothing to back up his statement.

All Bob has to do is propose any trajectory that would back up his statement, but he can't.

On 12/11/2016 at 8:09 PM, Ron Ecker said:

"America died on November 8, 2016"? If Neal Gabler wants to be that hypobolic, what about November 22, 1963? Did nothing die that day but a president? I think more of America died on 11/22/63 than died on 11/8/16. What happened on 11/8/16 can be easily corrected in four years. Not a damn thing about 11/22/63 has been corrected in 53 years and counting. But Gabler probably couldn't care less about that. Tom Hanks out there in La La Land has already let it be known that Oswald did it.

If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about when you slap Mr. Gabler, you might try using an actual word. The word is "hyperbolic." Do you once again object to the direct quotes? Per your standard demands, should I provide a link as proof?

Yes, and you certainly helped make 11/8/16 happen by not voting, or if you had voted, it would have been for Trump not Hillary, and you won't "easily" correct the problem in 4 years because you won't vote then either. Of course you take no responsibility for this fact.

"Easily corrected" my ass. Only you would make such a statement. The public gave Bush a 2nd term despite his allowing 911, and starting the Iraq War on a known lie. Which democrat will "easily" defeat whatever republican they run against? How much additional damage will a Republican Supreme Court inflict on the election process in four years? With Hillary the democrats would rule the Supreme Court, and there would at least be a chance the R's would have less control over the election, and would take steps to prevent another republican stepping into the WH after losing the popular vote.

For a guy who won't lower himself to be involved in the vote you certainly can't stop mouthing off about the election.

Should I post a link now to your statement that you will no longer respond to my posts, or wait until you do respond? Unlike the 'Clinton is a rapist' post where your statements (and most of the post itself) was deleted this post still exists. This was known to you when you demanded I post a link and the fact that it was deleted has been confirmed.

Let's see how well you keep your word...

BTW, you refused to answer my question, you just demanded a link. The question was: "Did you ever say Clinton is a rapist who belongs in prison?"

10 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

How dare you accuse me of LN tactics!

I believe the rules on this forum are quite simple. If you wish to state something as true, ie. Perry stating the bullet travelled horizontally between the trachea and the wound in the throat, you should be willing to back up your statement with evidence, if so requested.

YOU stated it, not me, so YOU back it up. Capiche?

Attempting to evade a question by sending the poser off to defend himself is a STANDARD LN tactic. This is exactly what you just did.

I've sent this info to you before, and as stated above, you just ignore because it conflicts with your theory. Are you telling me that if I posted it *THIS TIME* you'd actually admit it's true? You've never responded to these same questions, yet YOU continue to post the same old theory. Why don't YOU prove it?

How dare YOU get irate quoting non-existent rules to me. You stated the trajectory was deflected downward a "few" degrees. If you believe your own rule, why do you refuse to back that up with actual data that I have requested - trajectory angle from shooter and trajectory angle from entrance wound to trachea or C3/C4 and then on to the trachea?

YOU don't follow your own rules, yet you expect me to?

YOU stated it - so YOU back it up. Capiche?

I'll check back tonight for your answer to my questions - I DID ask first...

Same old Bob. Ask him a question that he refuses to answer and he then demands *I* prove my answer...

BTW, what do you think your idea that the number of icons above the knot in JFK's tie don't match the FBI photo indicates? That the tie nick was caused by something exiting through his shirt?