Antti Hynonen

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/henchlif.htm I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

As of today all moderators have been instructed to set all posts in violation of Forum rules as invisible. Breaking forum rules, includes posts with clear personal attacks, cursing etc. If your post becomes suddenly invisible, it is because your post does not comply with Forum rules. Normally such posts will not be set to visible again. The Education Forum rules are available on the Forum for all to see. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9792 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243 On behalf of the Moderators Antti Hynonen

Posting here seems to work: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16835&st=20 I see that you have 2 posts on page 2. Is something still missing? I don't know what else I could do from my end to facilitate? Antti

Testing to see if posting here works.

Replying to bolded section below. I do not agree that Burton should limit his number of replies to a number less than those posted by White & Fetzer. Judging from posts from page 8&9 thus far, Burton has not posted significantly more than Fetzer&White together. I see no need to moderate this thread at this time. Antti ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. Helps me in seeing the bigger picture. Antti No problem, Antti. Ist Pic 2nd Pic

Hi, The whole thread is confusing, in particular the agreed "rules". I have here Burton's and your agreement: ------------------------------------------- Posted 24 August 2010 - 12:46 PM, Evan Burton: I'd be happy with: Jack posts claim I respond Jim addresses my reply I respond to Jim last post Jim makes final comments Next image. Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic. -------------------------------------------- Then I have your comment to the above: -------------------------------------------- Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:40 PM; James H. Fetzer: This is a good plan, which I endorse. I would like to see the thread "cleaned up" as I have recommended. The moon rock issue has not been resolved. I mentioned it in post #7, he replied in #10 and I commented in #12. There is much more to be said on this subject, which I will bring up again in relation to the "Moon Movie" section. Clearly, it is a crucial question. I suggest deleting the other moon rock posts as well as those in which Evan indulges in his penchant for the use of RED and so on, which Gary can easily delete. If Gary thinks a section of the debate has had enough attention, he can recommend that we move on and afford an opportunity for each of us to explain why that is or why that is not a good idea. Many thanks. When Jack has several studies I would like him to post that are related to the same issue, such as those related to the moon rover, it would be appropriate to post them as a group to illustrate the dimensions of the issue being addressed. The idea of only posting one image at a time is really inappropriate, since they are evidence that is supportive of a single argument, which, in this case, is that at least some of the rover photos appear to have been faked. If Jack has five that I would like posted, it would be ridiculous to have him post five separate photos with five separate sequences of argumentative exchange. So that suggestion was a bad one. Otherwise, however, I would like to begin with Jack's moon rover photographs. ------------------------------------------------ According to this, Burton gets at least 2 posts per claim. If the rules have changed again, I refuse to moderate this mess. Antti

Evan, I can not see why not. This thread was for you and Fetzer.

I have investigated these posts, and as far as I can tell, both posts 7 and 42 are intact. They are posts by Jack White, neither has been deleted nor made invisible. Regards, Antti Hynonen Moderator

Duncan, Can you post (or post a link) to the original photos used in this study, please? Thanks. Antti

Jack, reviewing your old posts and following what you have said/claimed in the past is a normal way to conduct research and participate on this forum. By doing this, another member is not "stalking you". I agree an apology is in place!

Jim, Fascinating stuff. It would be fantastic if we could somehow find out more about your section 6 and the Tikander, Shepardson, Hurt etc. meeting on the Helsinki aspect. The time of events does tie in very nicely with Oswald's trip.

They need to check that date. It's probably 1962? On Dec 27th 1963, Kennedy had been dead for a month.

Same here, Results are: Choice A [ 1 ] ** [100.00%] Choice B [ 0 ] ** [0.00%] Choice C [ 0 ] ** [0.00%] Total Votes: 4 Mine appeared to be the 4th one, and no vote was entered by me either, you have already voted in this poll is what it says. And when I go back to vote, it does not let me cast a vote, bummer, I wanted to vote for C.

Thanks Duncan. Hmmm.... much of the clothing does match the description from before.

The person in question seems to be wearing a light blue/gray jacket or sweater, and a red or reddish brown skirt and white socks. What was Linda Phillis wearing that day? Are there other photos or film where this person might be present, for a better id? Mr. Gary Mack chimes in and tells me that Linda Willis did not have a camera that day.

Duncan, That is exactly what I thought, a circular motion with her right hand. Were there cameras in use in 1963 that needed to be wound in such a way? Also there is a reflection of sunlight off of her forehead, it seems that it is of a blue or silver shade, not a skin tone, which in my mind could mean e.g. a camera. I keep wondering whether another Dealey plaza film showing the assassination will pop up one day. I am hoping for one that would answer some questions.

Thank you for your reply. I can "buy" most of your reply. Especially the short round/round that hit something else first, that explains the back wound , the short round theory explains the different sound. No problems there. However, from what I have seen in terms of blows to the back (hits, stabbing etc.) I have to say Kennedy's reaction is not the same as any of those. In a hit to the back one would curl and try and reach the area affected (in the back), this is not the case in e.g. Zapruder. It is possible that the wound below the Adam's apple is not an entry wound. Ok. If so, where is the entry? I just can not conceive that after emerging from behind the highway sign, Kennedy is not reacting to the wound found below his Adam's apple, I think if we can assume and conclude anything from this case, then, in my opinion, the wound in the anterior neck and Kennedy's reaction before frame 313 are one of the most straight forward issues. One may say:" They go together like two peas in a pod". Antti Antti, Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me. I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet. Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath. Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round. Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often. Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different. This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for. One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path. I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing. Mike

Ok, fair enough. What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to? Please elaborate. Thanks.

Posterior neck? Don't you mean anterior neck, since you're citing the adams apple? Yes, You're quite right. I meant anterior. Sorry.

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign? In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his anterior neck, below the Adam's apple. Thanks. Not following you. And if you are suggesting that the bullet entered the neck and then ended up inside Kennedy's skull? What head wound are you describing? First day evidence was the best evidence - supported by a myriad of 'events' connected to the whitewash. Jenkins waffling is an all too familiar approach. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." After studying the medical evidence for several years full time, I came to the conclusion the throat wound was indeed related to the head wound. Seriously? So, one of two things occurred prior to the bullet exiting the head: Either: 1) The round that entered the throat circa Z190 took six seconds to exit, Or: 2) JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat several seconds before he was shot in the throat. Either one is ridiculous... The Parkland doctors didn't have the opportunity to view the Zapruder film or review the witness testimony of Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill, Linda Willis or Roy Kellerman -- all of whom describe JFK reacting to a hit well before the head shots. Totally ignoring the neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, Altgens 6, and the testimony of the folks listed above. What can be proven is the back wound was at T3. Show us where JFK's jacket was elevated more than a fraction of an inch in Dealey Plaza, Pat. Show us how a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt rides up more than a fraction of an inch. Tell us how 15 or so witnesses -- most of whom had a good, prolonged view of the body -- all got the back wound wrong. Was it a mass hallucination, Pat, or mere incompetence? Are you unaware of the damage shown in the neck x-ray? Bruised lung tip, hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. That's a straight front to back path from between the 3rd and 4th trach rings to C7/T1. There was no exit. There was no bullet recovered. These are irrefutable facts, Pat. Anyone that would make the conclusion, after examination that this was a wound of entry does one thing. Shows their absolute ignorance of wound ballistics. This is obviously a wound of an exiting fragment. I am very interested to see what Mr. Varnell surmises in regard to this wound. Ice bullet? Flachette? I would be very interested to do a quick run up of the energy transfer required and expected movement of the target. One thing is for certain, this was no entry of a projectile(bullet) of any type I have ever heard of.

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign? In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his anterior neck, below the Adam's apple. Not following you. And if you are suggesting that the bullet entered the neck and then ended up inside Kennedy's skull? What head wound are you describing? First day evidence was the best evidence - supported by a myriad of 'events' connected to the whitewash. Jenkins waffling is an all too familiar approach. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." After studying the medical evidence for several years full time, I came to the conclusion the throat wound was indeed related to the head wound. The Parkland doctors suspected the large head wound was an exit for an entrance in the throat. I suspect the throat wound was an exit for the bullet creating the small entrance near the EOP. Since the Clark Panel and Lattimer, etc, concluded there was a bullet path visible on the x-rays coming from what they thought was the back wound up above, and since we now know the back wound was really at or below the level of the throat wound, it seems likely the X-rays suggest the missile creating the throat wound descended within the neck. If so, then it's just a matter of time before the medical community comes around to my way of thinking.

Do you consider the fragments in JFK's head immaterial, or insignificant? How about those in Connaly's wrist and thigh? Thanks! Actually, I have only two remaining (intact) WCC 6.5mm Carcano rounds, and have no intention of shooting either one. As difficult as it was to part with (shoot) a portion of those found, if one is going to do "comparative testing", then one should not attempt to do so with any of the new NORMA ammo. However, the actual Italian rounds are quite similiar in structure to the WCC round, and can be easily utilized to determine if (which it does) a copper-jacketed Carcano bullet actually loses stability and begins to tumble in flight after having been fired through a 1-inch thick oak limb. Do you ballistics guys know how or why and of any other examples of a bullet fragmenting like the one that hit JFK's head? And has anyone tried to account for all of the fragments? Thanks, BK Bill, I really don't believe that bullet fragmented until after it left the head, and struck the chrome. That wound is a text book FMJ.

Yes, what carcano can you recycle and fire relatively accurately in 1.0 seconds? I think is also very challenging.

New members wanting to join the Education Forum need to contact John Simkin, (or perhaps Evan Burton can help nowadays too). A photo as an avatar as well as a biography are required. The bio needs to be linked to the new member's signature. Antti