Sandy Larsen

@Pat Speer has said several times in this thread that the TEMPLE wound seen by Tom Robinson and James Jenkins has been dishonestly mischaracterized by researchers Horne, Mantik, and Chesser as being a FOREHEAD wound, above the right eye, in the hairline. He says they are pulling this "hoax" in order to gain forehead wound witnesses. I have been doing some fact checking and have come to the conclusion that Pat's charges against Horne and Mantik are unfounded. My guess is that they are unfounded against Chesser as well. But I've run out out of time and won't be digging any further. Here is what I found: DOUG HORNE On this page on Doug Horne's website, Horne wrote the following about James Jenkins: "When questioned, [Jenkins] said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye." So Pat is wrong about this. I could find nothing at all about Horne claiming Tom Robinson saw a wound on the forehead. Nothing. So Pat is likely wrong about this too. DAVID MANTIK I have Mantik's latest book which has an appendix specifically covering the three headshot hypothesis. In this section are two lists of witnesses, one for the forehead wound and the other for the temple wound. I use the word "witness" loosely... a person can appear on the list merely for believing that the wound might be located there. James Jenkins' name is on the Temple Wound List, where it should be. So Pat is wrong about this too. Tom Robinson's name is on the Temple Wound List, where it should be. However, his name also appears on the Forehead Wound List and a reason is given why. It is because, in his ARRB testimony, Robinson is asked the leading question, "You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?" To which Robinson replied, "Yes." So Pat is wrong about this too.

Upon reading some of Horne's work, it now looks as though the temporal wound shown in Chesser's video is in front of the ear, not behind it. Therefore, that wound could indeed have been the temple wound described by Tom Robinson and James Jenkins, I think it probably was.

What do you base your opinion on since you could not possibly have seen the original film since you claim it was altered? I base the three or four feet height on Brugioni's statements, and the verticalness on those witnesses who got splattered.

Pat, We have to be precise about this. Jenkins didn't place the small temple wound directly above the right ear. He said it was a little to the front of the ear and a little above it. And without being lead, he referred to it as a "temple wound." From his book: "Dr. Finck and Humes started examining the head wounds. They found a small wound on the right side of the head in the temporal area just forward of and slightly above the right ear. … Dr. Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people who came in with him who seemed to be directing the autopsy. I was later told this was Dr. Burkley (Admiral), the president's personal physician. Dr. Humes came back to the table and immediately directed Dr. Finck away from the small wound in the temple to the large posterior head wound. The temple wound was abandoned and never returned to that night." Jenkins, Pg. 16, Cold Shoulder. Jenkins said nothing about this wound being on the edge of a large defect. There is no reason for you to think that. Now let's see how Tom Robinson describes what could be the same wound, and see how it compares. From Robinson's HSCA testimony: Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound. Robinson: Yes. Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on. Robinson: I believe it was on the right side. Purdy: On his right side? Robinson: That's an anatomical right, yes. Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line? Robinson: Yes. Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? Robinson: Somewhere around the temples. Purdy: Approximately what size. Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch. Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? Robinson: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it. .... Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area? Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time. Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound. Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel. So Tom Robinson, just like James Jenkins, describes the wound as being in the temple area. He goes into greater detail, saying that it was about 1/4" in diameter. What are you talking about? Their descriptions match closely. Both say a wound in the right temple area. Robinson didn't say that the temple wound was just in the skin! He specifically said it could have been caused by a bullet or a bullet fragment! So it penetrated the skull as well. The holes on the cheek were apparently additional holes that were not testified to for the HSCA. Perhaps those are the ones that penetrated the skin only. We can just ignore these. But that bullet wound in the x-ray is not in the right temple area... it is behind the right ear. So it cannot be the temple wound described by Robinson and Jenkins. Despite the fact that Robinson and Jenkins saw what they said was a wound in the temple area, the skull x-ray shows no such wound. How can that be explained? Chesser, et al apparently explains it by saying Robinson and Jenkins must have been off a little in describing the wound location. There's nothing bizarre about drawing that conclusion. P.S. I'm no radiologist. But when I look at the location of the temporal wound in Chesser's video, to me it looks like it is slightly behind the ear. And so it cannot be the temple wound described by Robinson and Jenkins. Now, if I am wrong and that wound in the x-ray is actually in front of the ear, that's a game changer. Because in that case it becomes very obvious that that is the same temple wound as described by Robinson and Jenkins. And in that case I'd be wondering why Chesser et al are claiming it to be a different wound.

No such thing has been proven at all, ever, in any form - especially on this forum. Photo densitometery has proven that the back part of Kennedy's head at 313 and several frames afterward are artificially too dark to be natural. A massive blowout wound occurs during these same frames, centered on Kennedy's right temple. Yet the autopsy photos show his right temple to be intact, as does the autopsy report. Not a single witness saw the massive right-temple wound.

In my opinion, the original film showed exit debris shooting upward to a height of three or four feet, and backward. In other words, at an angle. Brugioni was so astonished by the height and volume of the spray that the part about it shooting back at an angle didn't make a lasting impression on him.

Jeremy Bojczuk seems to think that he has proven Roger's Hawkeye Works theory wrong because he has found speculation in it. But the truth is, ALL theories have speculation in them. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be theories... they would be facts. Here is that way theories work: First, someone like Roger creates one. Then he promotes it, and it is supported by those who think it is viable. If anybody thinks the theory is flawed, the onus is on them to prove it has a fatal flaw. The theory stands as long as no fatal flaws are revealed. Given that it has been proven that the Z film has been altered, I believe that the Hawkeye Works theory is correct.

Pat, You point out that Tom Robinson and James Jenkins both said they saw a small wound on the right temple. And yet the x-ray shows there is no such wound. (The temporal entrance wound discussed in the film is POSTERIOR to the right ear, right?) Isn't it reasonable then to conclude that Robinson and Jenkins forgot the precise location over the decades, and that the wound they saw was actually a little to the left of the temple?

Just to be clear, Tom Robinson believed that the temple wound could have been a bullet wound. He merely guessed that it was an exit wound and not entrance. If asked if the wound was in the forehead up near the hair line, Robinson would say yes. From his HSCA interview: Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound. Robinson: Yes. Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on. Robinson: I believe it was on the right side. Purdy: On his right side? Robinson: That's an anatomical right, yes. Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line? Robinson: Yes. Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? Robinson: Somewhere around the temples. Purdy: Approximately what size. Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch. Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? Robinson: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it. .... Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area? Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time. Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound. Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel.

Denny, Dr. McClelland has always said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. Here is what happened regarding McClelland's earliest statement and how Pat mischaracterizes it for his own purposes: In McClelland's very first written statement, dated 11/22/63, to the best of my recollection he wrote that Kennedy died from a gunshot wound to the left temple. In the same paragraph he wrote that the gunshot resulted in a massive wound. Where did this "left temple" business come from? When the Parkland doctors were working on Kennedy, McClelland entered the room and asked where the gunshot wound was. Dr. Jenkins mistakenly told him it was in the left temple. Of course, he was talking about where the bullet hit the head, and that is how McClelland took it. (BTW Jenkins later denied his mistake, but it is well documented.) So anyway, Pat Speer comes along and reads McClelland's 11/22/63 statement. All he sees is "massive wound" and "temple" and decides, oh so that is where McClelland saw the gaping wound. Never mind that McClelland specified the wrong temple.

What you say (in red) is true. The reason being that some of the kinetic energy will be transformed into another form of energy... namely heat. And the amount of heat lost (dissipated) will depend upon the materials that collide. HOWEVER... One of the beauties of using the law of conservation of momentum is that energy is irrelevant! It need not be accounted for whatsoever... even if it is lost. All that matters are the initial and final values of momentum in the system under study. The total momentum will remain the same over time, as long as no external force acts upon any object in the system.

I'm pretty sure that the phrase "lone nut" comes from the narrative that one person alone -- i.e a nutjob -- killed Kennedy. Not from Oswald preferring to be alone. Maybe WC apologists like Mark Ulrik wouldn't be offended if CTers referred to them as LNers rather than lone nuts. Referring to them as lone nuts makes no sense, and indeed IS offensive. CTers and LNers can't work together because we are here for different reasons. CTers are here to discover the details behind the conspiracy. LNers are here because... um... I don't know why they are here. @Mark Ulrik, why do you come here? JFK assassination debate forums have two primary goals. The first is to discover what the truth is. The second is to broadcast the truth. It is essential that those who know the REAL truth win the debate. Otherwise a falsehood will be broadcast rather than the truth.

Nearly every doctor said early on that the gaping wound was on the back of he head. Several said it was so low that they could see cerebellar tissue oozing out the wound. And yet the autopsy photos show no such wound on the back of the head. So how does one explain the discrepancy between the autopsy photos and the eyewitness's testimony? It naturally comes to mind that the witnesses were mistaken. People, after all, do make mistakes. However in this instance it is different. In this case there are so many corroborating witnesses that it is virtually impossible for them all to be wrong. So what does that leave us? The only other possibility is that the autopsy photos have been altered in a way to make the back-of-head wound disappear. This hypothesized alteration actually makes a lot of sense, given that a gaping wound on the back of the head would cause serious problems for the lone-gunman narrative being pushed by the U.S, government. Remember, a back-of-head gaping wound indicates a gunshot from JFK's front. And so we accept autopsy photo alteration as the explanation for the photos not reflecting what the witnesses saw. As I said, it is really our only choice. Now, as Pat said in the prior post, a number of the doctors revised their statements when it was pointed out to them that the autopsy photos showed no gaping wound on the back of the head. This should come as no surprise as not doing so would put a doctor in a very difficult position... possibly causing them to lose credibility in their profession. What this action does for us is to remind us that the best witnesses are the early ones who haven't had time for their positions to be tainted. That is the reason that many of us consider only early statements and testimonies when determining the facts of this case. This is in stark contrast to Pat's practice of jumping around in time, cherry-picking when best to choose a witness's position to serve his purpose.

I don't have the right tools or data to do that. Even if I did, I don't have the inclination.

In his equation, W separated the parts of the head that separated from it and represented its momentum as M3V3. Since the separated mass broke into multiple pieces, M3 must therefore represent its center of mass. And V3 must represent the center's velocity.