The "Headshots"

[Miles Scull]

Best Evidence? Speaking of which, David Lifton is certainly stirring the pot - won't you agree?

Right. Lifton is key.

Z is shakey.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Then why not make an attempt to "argue" the points of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact?

I find the discussion of which way the bullet entered the President's head by way of the autopsy to be a waste of time because there is so much contradictory evidence that nothing can be considered factual. The head was seen differently at Bethesda as described in Dallas, thus the evidence has been compromised as far the the body goes. About a third of the President's brain was missing in Dallas - O'Conner finds the head cavity void of a brain when Paul unzipped the body bag containing the president's body. Jackie arrives with the alleged casket containing JFK's body, which Custer observed as he is carrying the Xrays of JFK that he has already taken. Then we are given a brain weight that shows no sign of a loss of brain tissue. Something is not right and no matter whether one believes in a conspiracy or not in JFK's assassination, there can be no denying that because of a poor chain of evidence being carried out has resulted in some rather doubtful and shoddy evidence.

So we go back to a point when the body had yet been compromised - The assassination films. The assassination films show only one impact to the President's head according to blood spatter science. It was stated to me by a blood spatter expert that a second impact to the President's head would have resulted in a second halo effect and that an already weakened skull would have been obliterated, which is not what is seen in the Zapruder film. So it seems to me that the best evidence is the evidence examined before the mysterious varying descriptions of JFK's wounds took place. With that being said, then the evidence has been addressed IMO.

I find the discussion of which way the bullet entered the President's head by way of the autopsy to be a waste of time because there is so much contradictory evidence that nothing can be considered factual.

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

Or perhaps in your case, it is just too difficult to understand.

The head was seen differently at Bethesda as described in Dallas, thus the evidence has been compromised as far the the body goes.

Perhaps you can look at some more films and photo's and figure it out. As for me, being somewhat limited in the "Crystal Ball" concept, I had to locate and speak with those who actually observed and examined JFK.

There is little that was "seen differently", and considering that the Parkland ER Doctors did no actual examination, of the head, the "differences" are relatively simple to explain.

So we go back to a point when the body had yet been compromised

Exactly what makes you of the opinion that the body was "compromised"?

OD on BEST EVIDENCE did we?

Attempting to save the life of JFK in the ER, hardly consists of having "compromised" his body.

The assassination films. The assassination films show only one impact to the President's head according to blood spatter science

The "assassination films" would be totally inadmissable in any court of law. And, the "VooDoo Science" of the "blood spatter science" of looking at films is a complete joke.

Anyone who attempted to present this in a court would be driven to complete shame.

It was stated to me by a blood spatter expert that a second impact to the President's head would have resulted in a second halo effect and that an already weakened skull would have been obliterated, which is not what is seen in the Zapruder film.

Why not use names? Your "blood spatter" expert (whom most of us know who it actually is) must be paying you to XXXX here for that assinine science.*

*Blood Splatter" is in fact a combination of a science as well as an art. However, there are certain variables which, as in most things, affect the actual outcome.

For someone to sit back and look at the Z-film and claim that they can tell some fantastic story in relationship to where a shot was fired from, is pure BS.

Especially when that person appears dead set on ignoring all of the witness testimonies that the cerebral tissue, etc; was BLOWN FORWARD, that the rear of the jump seats was covered with this debri, that the bullet fragments went FORWARD, etc; etc; etc.

and that an already weakened skull would have been obliterated

Pretty big "Leap" there from purported "Blood Spatter Expert" to wounds ballistic expert, don't you think.

The only thing which I personally have ever seen "obliterate" the head of someone, was an NVA who had the misfortune of a direct hit in the face from an 40mm grenade launcher.

That was complete obliteration.

Other than that, even 50 caliber hits left skull.

So, where did your "Blood Spatter" expert gain this valuable wounds ballistics expertise?

And, actually, the second shot impact did a pretty good job of fracture and fragmentation of that portion of JFK's skull in the OCCIPUT/Occipital region.

Considering that the Z313 impact had blown off the top of the skull and already "compromised" the integrity of the skull, it did not take much for the EOP impact, down in front of James Altgens position, to take out that remaining portion of the skull in the occiput.

Just as Dr. Humes & Boswell found.

So it seems to me that the best evidence is the evidence examined before the mysterious varying descriptions of JFK's wounds took place.

The fact that you can neither understand the aspects of JFK's wounds, as well as the fact that you have apparantly never made any direct attempt to research and understand these wounds, may be "mysterious" to you as to why you fail to understand them.

Nothing mysterious to me. Few persons that I am aware of are born with the ability to instantly look at something and suddenly and instantly know all about the subject matter.

Most have to actually research and learn.

Like to tell us about all of your independent research into the aspect of JFK's wounds?

Watching the Movie JFK (including multiple re-runs) as well as reading and or sleeping with BEST EVIDENCE, does not carry much weight in actual research.

Just as falling for some mystical/mythological ability to determine blood spatter/splatter by reviewing a film of dubious origin does not hold up to much scrutiny.

So, by all means, keep studying the films for another forty years as well as believing the "crystal ball" method of determination of blood spatter/splatter.

Then, just perhaps when you are 80+ or so, you will actually realize that one can not determine how JFK was assassinated by looking at any of the films with which we have been provided, and also come to recognize exactly how much time you have wasted in attempt to do so.

Edited by moderator due to offensive choice of words.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

Why not use names? Your "blood spatter" expert (whom most of us know who it actually is) must be paying you to XXXX here for that assinine science.*

The expert I spoke with is not a XXXX and if you know who she is, then you would not have said such a stupid thing about her .... your choice of words show just how narrow minded you are. I am rather surprised that the usually over-sensitive moderators allow you to post such a comment.

Maybe you can post on your blood spatter expertise or post any information you have sought from another blood spatter expert that contradicts Sherry's observations. And as I recall, Al Carrier, who is a ballistics expert and experienced in CSI, also supported the work of the blood expert that you refer to as a 'whore'.

And by the way - you misspelled "ASININE". I bet that Dr. Henry Lee can spell the word correctly. You should advertise that the next time a blood spatter exert is used in a court of law to prove a case ... the defense can call you to testify that blood spatter science is asinine ... that should go over pretty big.

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate language.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Why not use names? Your "blood spatter" expert (whom most of us know who it actually is) must be paying you to XXXX here for that assinine science.*

The expert I spoke with is not a XXXX and if you know who she is, then you would not have said such a stupid thing about her .... your choice of words show just how narrow minded you are. I am rather surprised that the usually over-sensitive moderators allow you to post such a comment.

Maybe you can post on your blood spatter expertise or post any information you have sought from another blood spatter expert that contradicts Sherry's observations. And as I recall, Al Carrier, who is a ballistics expert and experienced in CSI, also supported the work of the blood expert that you refer to as a 'whore'.

And by the way - you misspelled "ASININE". I bet that Dr. Henry Lee can spell the word correctly. You should advertise that the next time a blood spatter exert is used in a court of law to prove a case ... the defense can call you to testify that blood spatter science is asinine ... that should go over pretty big.

The expert I spoke with is not a XXXX and if you know who she is, then you would not have said such a stupid thing about her .... your choice of words show just how narrow minded you are. I am rather surprised that the usually over-sensitive moderators allow you to post such a comment.

Nope! You are the one who labeled Sherry with the XXXX -word. Not me!

I merely stated that you were XXXX for someone.

http://www.slate.com/id/2184211/

Just as I and many others have stated that David Von Pein is also XXXX for VDB's book.

(intepretation often has much to do with where one's mind is) The expert I spoke with is not a XXXX

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you can post on your blood spatter expertise or post any information you have sought from another blood spatter expert that contradicts Sherry's observations. And as I recall, Al Carrier, who is a ballistics expert and experienced in CSI, also supported the work of the blood expert that you refer to as a 'whore'.

Then perhaps you should see if you can get big, bad, ole Al Carrier back on board here.

Last time that I checked, he was pretty well sent packing with his "Canyon Shoot" BS lack of research into anything.

blood expert that you refer to as a XXXX [/

Sherry just may get mad if you keep calling her names like that.

Maybe you can post on your blood spatter expertise or post any information you have sought from another blood spatter expert that contradicts Sherry's observations.

Hey, I am a full-blooded country boy, and recognize BS without the assistance of anyone. Not only that, I would personally be somewhat embarrased to show up at a true experts location with some copy of the Z-film and then ask for said person to give me a definitive ruling as to where the shots were fired from.

Although quite old and somewhat ugly, I attempt to make every effort to not also look completely ignorant.

And by the way - you misspelled "ASININE".

Nope! Been getting away with that one (as well as a few others) even on John McAdams "censored" site.

Asinine has it's meaning!

Down here in the good old deep south, "ass-inine" is something else! We generally save it for discussions related to where someone makes a complete A** of themselves by making an extremely stupid statement.

(guess the cat is out of the bag now, huh! Wonder if McAdams is listening and whether or not I can still get away with it there?))

the defense can call you to testify that blood spatter science is asinine ... that should go over pretty big.

Anyone who is of the opinion that they can look at the Z-film, (which is itself of dubious credentials) and thereafter state as a forensic and ballistic fact that some shot is impacting JFK from ANY direction, is making an ASSININE statement.

It can not be done!

In fact, it sort of makes one wonder as to exactly what level of intellectual capacity would even believe such a concept?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodstain_pattern_analysis

What can an investigator expect from BPA?

Not every result of BPA will qualify as incontrovertible evidence, but the following are some things a bloodstain pattern analyst may be able to determine conclusively and state as fact:

Location and description of individual stains and patterns,

Mechanism that created the stains,

Direction a blood droplet was traveling (by calculating angles of impact),

Area of origin (location of blow into blood source),

Type of object used in attack (edged, blunt, firearm, etc.),

Minimum number of blows,

The presence of a subject at a scene,

Positioning of the victim, perpetrator, and objects during events, and

The sequence of events.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See anything in there about "Looking" at some movie film of dubious quality??????

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photography

Crime scene photography has some unique requirements. In the event there is a bloodletting scene, the basics are still required but special attention must be given to the bloodstains. The current means of documenting the scene include, 35 mm (B&W, colour, and specialty film), digital cameras (such as Nikon D70S among others), and video (Hi-8, DV, and other formats). Each method has its pros and cons. Often the scene is documented using multiple methods. (Videography has been included here because it follows the same principles and provides crime scene images.)

There are three types of crime scene photos:

Overall – wide-angle images (28-35 mm range) that capture the scene as it is. This type of image provides anyone who has not been in the scene a good overall layout.

Mid-range – images taken with a normal lens (45-55 mm range) give greater detail than the overall shots. In the case of a bloodletting scene, the mid-range image could capture a single bloodstain pattern.

Close-up – images taken with a macro lens giving the greatest amount of detail. For example, a medium velocity impact pattern can contain thousands of individual stains where there is a preponderance of small stains (1-3 mm in diameter) some of which require individual images.

Many times an analyst cannot attend a bloodletting scene. Therefore, the analyst may have to do all his work based on the crime scene images and notes of the person who attended. An appropriate sized scale should be in overall, mid-range, and close-up images. For overall images the scales should be parallel and perpendicular to the floor. This provides the analyst, and anyone else who looks at the images, a proper perspective on what they are observing. (Note: in some cases overall and mid-range images are taken with and without a scale.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I would appreciate getting to view all of those "close-up" photographs which demonstrated the patterns of the "Spatter" all over the presidential limo and it's occupants.

Especially since such evidence would be absolutely essential in determination of anything related to "Spatter Analysis".

Furthermore, all documented research of cerebral spray upwards, into the wind, from a vehicle moving at some 8 to 10 mph would also be greatly appreciated as my library is currently lacking any research materials of this nature.

Lastly, as a general rule, blood spatter/splatter is a "complimentary" science in that it must be combined with the other known forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts in order to arrive at it's contribution to the overall crime scene evaluation.

And, since it is quite apparant that neither you nor the blood spatter expert know that much about the last four physical sciences required of Crime Scene Investigation, it would equate to considerably less than 20% potential of being correct.

And, as in cards, bullet fragments forward to windshields and moldings, tend to "trump" cerebral tissues blown up into the air and dispersed by wind and vehicle speed.

So, not unlike Mr. David Von Pein's XXXX for and support of efforts by VDB to explain the facts, one had best have a thorough understand of these facts before attempting to sell them to me.

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate language.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Miles Scull]

Interesting points, Tom,

Of course this has been addressed many times, but just for the exercise please outline (sketch) again the reasoning for the contention that this action:

was not necessarily caused by a shot from the front, but could have been caused by a shot from the rear, if you've got a sec.

Thanks

Edited March 15, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[David G. Healy]

Why not use names? Your "blood spatter" expert (whom most of us know who it actually is) must be paying you to XXXX here for that assinine science.*

The expert I spoke with is not a XXXX and if you know who she is, then you would not have said such a stupid thing about her .... your choice of words show just how narrow minded you are. I am rather surprised that the usually over-sensitive moderators allow you to post such a comment.

Maybe you can post on your blood spatter expertise or post any information you have sought from another blood spatter expert that contradicts Sherry's observations. And as I recall, Al Carrier, who is a ballistics expert and experienced in CSI, also supported the work of the blood expert that you refer to as a 'whore'.

And by the way - you misspelled "ASININE". I bet that Dr. Henry Lee can spell the word correctly. You should advertise that the next time a blood spatter exert is used in a court of law to prove a case ... the defense can call you to testify that blood spatter science is asinine ... that should go over pretty big.

I'm always amazed at the level of police work accomplished by walking the streets of Dallas, and Dealey Plaza a few times... watch a few films, put pen to paper -- then declare to those us whom have been on BOTH business ends of weapons fire, how it all happened, amazing...

Now, Lancer is a business, Bill. Pure and simple (I believe Sherry [the blood spatter analyst] is part of that business, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). What ever the position that overall board takes; CT, Lone Nut KOOK or combination of both -- it's simply PR, pushing a position, hype and professional/amateur XXXX a position...

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate language.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

Nope! You are the one who labeled Sherry with the XXXX -word. Not me!

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you.

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate language.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

I'm always amazed at the level of police work accomplished by walking the streets of Dallas, and Dealey Plaza a few times... watch a few films, put pen to paper -- then declare to those us whom have been on BOTH business ends of weapons fire, how it all happened, amazing...

I think someone blowing bubbles would amaze you, David. Maybe perhaps you walked the streets of dallas, and Dealey Plaza a few times, etc., then maybe you'd be able to intelligently discuss the JFK assassination.

Now, Lancer is a business, Bill. Pure and simple (I believe Sherry [the blood spatter analyst] is part of that business, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). What ever the position that overall board takes; CT, Lone Nut KOOK or combination of both -- it's simply PR, pushing a position, hype and professional/amateur XXXX a position...

Can I assume from your ignorant response that you have told us all you know about Lancer's business!

Wow ... I only thought it was the JFK assassination evidence that you were lacking knowledge of ... thanks for correcting me.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

Interesting points, Tom,

Of course this has been addressed many times, but just for the exercise please outline (sketch) again the reasoning for the contention that this action:

was not necessarily caused by a shot from the front, but could have been caused by a shot from the rear, if you've got a sec.

Thanks

Yes ... good post, Miles. I would also like Tom to get into the 'floating cop torso shooter' aspect of the frontal shot that you were applauding Duncan for.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Interesting points, Tom,

Of course this has been addressed many times, but just for the exercise please outline (sketch) again the reasoning for the contention that this action:

was not necessarily caused by a shot from the front, but could have been caused by a shot from the rear, if you've got a sec.

Thanks

In the event that I could decipher exactly which action you refer, then perhaps it could be addressed specifically.

Nevertheless, the following applies:

1. At Z255 JFK had not been hit in the head, and James Altgens took a clear photo (CE900), of which clear copies demonstrate that the Presidential Limousine had no damage to the front windshield.

2. At Z313, we see the indications of an impact to the skull of JFK, which, in addition to cerebral tissue, appears to demonstrate bullet fragments as well as cerebral debri going up as well as forward of JFK's head.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

Which, even in a "still" target would be sufficient cause to virtually eliminate a shot from the front, and when one takes into consideration the fact that the Presidential Limo was travelling at some 8mph to 10mph of forward speed at the time of impact, this adds to the velocity necessary for this cerebral tissue and bullet fragments to have escaped---FORWARD as demonstrated in the Z-film.

3. Subsequently, we have a considerably portion of a bullet found in two locations within the front of the limo, which, unless some new law of physics exists, could have come only from a shot from the rear, as well as the fact that there is now a confirmed impact crack in the windshield on the inner side from which lead scrapings were taken (indication of a lead fragment striking, as well as one of the fragments found in the front of the limo being a portion of the lead core of a bullet), as well as an indentation in the chrome molding of the front windshield in which no lead residue could be found.

However a portion of the copper jacket to a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet was found in which a portion of the copper jacket had been "bent" backwards.

And, this portion of the copper jacket which was found in the FRONT of the Preidential Limo, contained sufficient rifling markings to be matched exactly to the 6.5mm Carcano rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

4. Lastly, three MD's examined JFK at the autopsy, and none found any indications of a shot to the head from the front.*

(Which of course does not say a great deal as they also completely missed a second shot impact from the rear, and if and when ultimately proven factual, could have just as easily been having totally missed evidence of a shot from the front as well.)

However, the tell-tale outline of the metallic residue which is embedded in the portion of JFK's skull which is the "skull cap" section, and which section was initially blown over to the right hand side of JFK's head, clearly demonstrates that this shot, which was in fact the Z313 impact, clearly began it's exit from the skull FORWARD of that bullet entrance which is also observed in the Anterior/Posterior X-ray. Therefore, the bullet which exited the skull of JFK after the Z313 impact, and which bullet left a metallic residue outline on the INNER TABLE of the skull, as the bullet began to exit FORWARD of the cowlick entry, this bullet ABSOLUTELY was fired from behind in order to have left this tell-tale metallic residue outline on the inner table of JFK's skull.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Nope! You are the one who labeled Sherry with the XXXX word. Not me!

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you.

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you

Might I ask if you deciphered this bit of information as to exactly what I meant by again staring at the "dubious" copy of the Z-film?

Personally, I have no idea as to what profession Sherry serves in, and know absolutely nothing about her other than her purported expertise at Blood Spatter/Splatter analysis and the quite dubious claim that she can tell a shot from the front by looking at the Zapruder film.

Since you quite obviously know her better than I, then quite obviously, as you appear to have done, you would know more about what her exact and true profession is.

Therefore, I must defer to your assessment, although personally, not knowing much of anything about the lady, I would never resort to calling her the XXXX word.

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate langauge.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Miles Scull]

Nope! You are the one who labeled Sherry with the "W"-word. Not me!

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you.

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you

Might I ask if you deciphered this bit of information as to exactly what I meant by again staring at the "dubious" copy of the Z-film?

Personally, I have no idea as to what profession Sherry serves in, and know absolutely nothing about her other than her purported expertise at Blood Spatter/Splatter analysis and the quite dubious claim that she can tell a shot from the front by looking at the Zapruder film.

Since you quite obviously know her better than I, then quite obviously, as you appear to have done, you would know more about what her exact and true profession is.

Therefore, I must defer to your assessment, although personally, not knowing much of anything about the lady, I would never resort to calling her the "W" word.

Thx Tom,

Just real quick, for now:

Given that your analysis is valid, as I allow, is it still possible that a front shot did also occur?

If not, then, why not?

No hurry....................

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate langauge.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[David G. Healy]

Nope! You are the one who labeled Sherry with the XXXX word. Not me!

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you.

gotta stop leading with your chin, Miller!

Edited by moderator.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Nope! You are the one who labeled Sherry with the "W"-word. Not me!

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you.

No Tom ... you just used words like XXXX for 'her' ... I know what you meant and so did you

Might I ask if you deciphered this bit of information as to exactly what I meant by again staring at the "dubious" copy of the Z-film?

Personally, I have no idea as to what profession Sherry serves in, and know absolutely nothing about her other than her purported expertise at Blood Spatter/Splatter analysis and the quite dubious claim that she can tell a shot from the front by looking at the Zapruder film.

Since you quite obviously know her better than I, then quite obviously, as you appear to have done, you would know more about what her exact and true profession is.

Therefore, I must defer to your assessment, although personally, not knowing much of anything about the lady, I would never resort to calling her the "W" word.

Thx Tom,

Just real quick, for now:

Given that your analysis is valid, as I allow, is it still possible that a front shot did also occur?

If not, then, why not?

No hurry....................

It is "possible" that multitudes of shooters were in Dealy Plaza and all took a shot.

However, there still exists, zero forensic; ballistic; pathological; and/or physical evidence to indicate any shot, striking any occupant of the Presidential Limousine, from any position other than from above and behind.

Plus the fact that three shots were reportedly fired (by the great majority of those persons who were in a position to not have "echo" interference), and, all three bullets are fully accounted for as well as the pathological damage which each bullet is responsible for having created.

Now, back to the Z-film!

Am I to assume that you reference the slight forward movement, followed by the violent rearward movement of the head?

Remember!

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!

However, sometimes, an old A**Hole can make them reappear if necessary!

Edited by moderator.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I had previously posted this photo of the portion of the copper jacket to a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet which was found in the front of the Presidential Limo.

It is further noted that sufficient rifling markings existed to ballistically match this fragment to the Carcano Rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

I had also posted previously a drawing which demonstrated how a portion of the Z313 impact bullet (the nose) was sheared from the bullet upon it's initial exit from the interior of the skull, as well as how this exit left the metallic residue embedded on the INNER Table of the skull, as can be seen in the anterior/posterior X-ray.

It was also briefly mentioned as to how the exiting of this bullet would have created sufficient forces to have "carried" JFK's head slightly forward due not to actual impact of the bullet, but more so due to the forces exerted onto the head as the bullet began it exit against the frontal lobe of the skull.

I found this old drawing while attempting to dig through boxes in the shed, and it depicts how the bullet nose would have turned downward into the brain/cerebral tissue after have lost portions of it's nose (sheared off) as a result of intial exit from the skull.

This drawing was designed specifically to demonstrate what it would take for the soft bone of the skull to physically "cut" the copper jacket of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet in two.