The "Headshots"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Backside of the "old" drawing, for those who may have interest.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who may be familiar with the "Cowlick v. EOP" controversy.

The attached autopsy photo demonstrates the basics of the problem.

The arrow points to the "scalp wound" as determined by the HSCA Medical Panel, which wound they stated corresponded with the cowlick entry into the skull which could be observed on the anterior posterior X-ray.

However, the autopsy surgeons stated that the wound which they observed in the EOP region of the skull did not show on the anterior posterior X-ray, and that the entrance into the scalp was down at the lower edge of the hairline where the small indication of cerebral tissue is seen.

Now! Considering that the autopsy surgeons took samples from the skin/scalp of JFK at the entrance wound which they observed, and later examined these tissues under a microscope, one must assume that they are quite familiar with exactly where they observed the scalp as well as skull entry.

Nevertheless, this does not negate the absolute of the higher entry wound which can be seen in the cowlick area , as well as the metallic residue embedded on the inner table of the skull, forward of this entry wound location.

There is no "Cowlick v. EOP" controversy.

It is in fact, the Cowlick entry/aka Z313 impact, and the EOP entry/aka the Altgens location entry.

[Bill Miller]

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

I thought that having those same three men out of all the possibilities was so to have an inadequate autopsy that would lead to what ever findings their superiors wanted. Wasn't it said that they were told to move on and not carry out the usual duties of an autopsy.

It also seems to me that the head described at Bethesda and represented in the alleged autopsy photos do not mesh with the wounds as seen in Dallas. So how can there be an accurate conclusion drawn by these select three men if the body had been altered between Dallas and Bethesda ... seems like a waste of time at that point.

[Bill Miller]

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.

Seems like you would want to know her profession - her qualifications - and her conclusions before accusing someone of XXXX for her.

Edited by moderator.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

gotta stop leading with your chin, Miller!

I would prefer to lead with your chin, David ... but it appears to be made of glass.

[David G. Healy]

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.

Seems like you would want to know her profession - her qualifications - and her conclusions before accusing someone of XXXX for her.

Why? Sherry has never stated what Z-film version she reviewed, nor the source for same, nor where she viewed same. Was the film verified as authentic, if so what were qualifications for same and WHO provided a certificate of authenticity (all things needed in a court of law). Then you can tell us, how one can view a 2D simulation of a real world 3D event and come to concrete conclusion about ANYTHING....

You're not XXXX Sherry's opinion here, are ya?

Edited by moderator.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

Seems like you would want to know her profession - her qualifications - and her conclusions before accusing someone of XXXX for her.

Edited by moderator.

Bill;

The Statement was:

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 definitive phrase "for that assinine science", clearly, in the english language, is the object of the verb (XXXX/Deleted).

Perhaps you should stick with attempting to resolve the issues through the "Crystal Ball" method of looking at photographs; films; inkblots; and clouds in the sky, as it would appear the ability to deciper the english language in resolution of answers is somewhat lacking.

[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

Miles:

In "continuation" of the answer to your question!

During the HSCA Medical Panel questioning of Humes & Boswell. they were shown the autopsy photo's as well as the anterior/posterior X-ray. (below again provided).

Item "A" is that "cowlick" entry wound which the HSCA determined and which penetration through the skull, they also stated was correlated with/to the entrance wound of the scalp in the same region.

HOWEVER!

Humes & Boswell said NO!

That WAS NOT the entry wound which they had found down at the EOP, and that said entry wound did not show on this X-ray.

As previously stated, the "skull cap" portion of JFK's head, which can be seen blown off over onto the right hand side of his head immediately after he Z313 impact, contained this entry wound, and for whatever reason, this portion of the skull, which contained the HSCA observed/aka Cowlick entry (as well as beginning exit point of the bullet*), was not present when Humes & Boswell did their initial examination and determination of cause of death.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0036b.htm

Thusly, it is fully understandable as to exactly why they did not see this "cowlick/10+cm higher on the skull wound of entry.

Note: If you had any idea as to how many times that I discussed this drawing with Dr. Boswell, then you would most probably question exactly why he did not tell me to cease bothering him and go bury my head in the sand, or something else worthwhile.

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

And, the answer is: Dr. Boswell is originally from Oklahoma!

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

Continuation:

As also previously discussed and demonstrated! Item "B" on the anterior/posterior X-ray represents metallic residue (shavings) embedded in the INNER TABLE of the skull, as well as along the sidewall of that area where a projectile/aka bullet began to exit the skull of JFK.

The definitive characteristis of this are, for all practical purposes, an ABSOLUTE, just as does the x-ray demonstrate that after initial exit encounter with the skull, that the bullet thereafter ripped out all other areas of the skull FORWARD of this metallic residue. (portion of parietal as well as frontal lobe of the skull)

Thusly, the bullet and/or fragments, went FORWARD, from rear towards front during this exit from inside the skull.

Thusly, A SHOT FROM THE REAR created this exit damage/metallic residue left embedded within the skull.

Now, since the "skull cap" portion of the skull which contains this metallic residue outline of an EXIT point, as well as the apparant "cowlick" entry into the rear of the skull, was immediately blown over to the right hand side of JFK's head immediately after the Z313 impact, then it requires little effort to determine that the "removal" of this portion of JFK's skull was caused by a bullet which exited FRONTWARDS/FORWARDS, irrelevant as to whether the "cowlick" entry skull penetration is or is not an actual bullet hole. (which it most assuredly is).

Now! That piece of JFK's skull which contains the ABSOLUTE EXIT point of a bullet,(as well as the purported bullet entry point at the cowlick) which was travelling from rearward, towards the front, was blown over onto the right hand side of JFK's head IMMEDIATELY after the Z313 impact. Thus, one might say that it was thereafter "unavailable" to acquire either the purported cowlick entry point and/or the absolute internal exit point, after the Z313 impact, as such a second impact to this portion of the skull would have to had occurred as fired from directly to the right of JFK, and which impact would have also created an entry wound in the right temporal side of JFK's skull as well as that continuation of internal damage to the temporal areas of the brain, completely across the head, to an exit point which would have blown out the left hand side of JFK's head in the temporal area.

Which damage JFK did not have.

(to be continued)

P.S.:

1. Answers which require no thought:--------------00.50 cents.

2. Answers which require any thought:-------------$1.00

3. Simple (& correct answers)-----------------------$10.00

4. Correct answers to complicated subjects:----------------------------------------Like Lawyer Fees.

Just, for your information, wanted you to be aware of exactly how high a bill you may be incurring, and would you

Please send "Billing Address".

Tom

[Bill Miller]

Why? Sherry has never stated what Z-film version she reviewed, nor the source for same, nor where she viewed same. Was the film verified as authentic, if so what were qualifications for same and WHO provided a certificate of authenticity (all things needed in a court of law). Then you can tell us, how one can view a 2D simulation of a real world 3D event and come to concrete conclusion about ANYTHING....

Sherry has said much to those who seek her opinion - you obviously have not, but as in law ... IGNORANCE is not a defense, David.

As far as who has authenticated the Zfilm - Zavada and Groden come to mind. As I recall ... you are not qualified to authenticate Kodachrome II film.

And you might want to take a course in criminal investigation for films are used all the time in trials. And while the Zfilm, like any other film, is a 2D image, the debris being blown in the air from the bullet smashing into the brain 'WAS' seen on the 2D film ... a second explosion of debris IS NOT seen on the 2D image. These are just some basic observations that even you should be able to understand ... contact Sherry and let her complicate your world if you really are interested in knowing more.

[Miles Scull]

contact Sherry in knowing more.[/b]

1. Answers which require no thought:--------------00.50 cents.

2. Answers which require any thought:-------------$1.00

3. Simple (& correct answers)-----------------------$10.00

4. Correct answers to complicated subjects:----------------------------------------Like Lawyer Fees.

Just, for your information, wanted you to be aware of exactly how high a bill you may be incurring, and would you

Please send "Billing Address".

Tom

Tom,

What's got me worried is the

bang............................bang..bang

evidence.

Does your theory encompass this? The shot timing?

Were two gunmen shooting? Or three?

You acccept CSA currency?

Edited March 18, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Perhaps you should stick with attempting to resolve the issues through the "Crystal Ball" method of looking at photographs; films; inkblots; and clouds in the sky, as it would appear the ability to deciper the english language in resolution of answers is somewhat lacking.

I will take that advice over the ramblings of a fanatic.

fanatic n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. adj.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Rosemary Willis, the running girl in Zapruder, was recently interviewed for a Japanese documentary. She described the shots as bang .................. bang, bang ........ bang (4 in total)

Wim

Edited March 18, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Thomas H. Purvis]

contact Sherry in knowing more.[/b]

1. Answers which require no thought:--------------00.50 cents.

2. Answers which require any thought:-------------$1.00

3. Simple (& correct answers)-----------------------$10.00

4. Correct answers to complicated subjects:----------------------------------------Like Lawyer Fees.

Just, for your information, wanted you to be aware of exactly how high a bill you may be incurring, and would you

Please send "Billing Address".

Tom

Tom,

What's got me worried is the

bang............................bang..bang

evidence.

Does your theory encompass this? The shot timing?

Were two gunmen shooting? Or three?

You except CSA currency?

Were two gunmen shooting? Or three?

Answer:-----one!

CE399 as well as the Z313 impact fragment was perfectly matched to the TSDB Carcano.

A "single" witness observed the LAST SHOT as it was fired from the TSDB window.

Does your theory encompass this? The shot timing?

#1 at/about Z204/Z206

5.8 to 5.9 seconds later

#2 Fired at/about Z311/312, impact at Z313

1.8 to 1.9 seconds later

#3--Altgens impact, some 30-feet farther down Elm St.

You except CSA currency?[/

Do you mean there is actually something else?

Good thing, my old Jefferson Davis notes are getting well worn.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Rosemary Willis, the running girl in Zapruder, was recently interviewed for a Japanese documentary. She described the shots as bang .................. bang, bang ........ bang (4 in total)

Wim

As did Mr. Robert West, who's opinions I value greatly.

Along with S.M. Holland and considerable others.

None of which negates the fact that virtually all persons who were in a position where their hearing would not be inteferred with by echo patterns, clearly reported having heard three shots.

Bang:-------------------------------------------------------------------Bang:---------------Bang

[Miles Scull]

Rosemary Willis, the running girl in Zapruder, was recently interviewed for a Japanese documentary. She described the shots as bang .................. bang, bang ........ bang (4 in total)

Wim

As did Mr. Robert West, who's opinions I value greatly.

Along with S.M. Holland and considerable others.

None of which negates the fact that virtually all persons who were in a position where their hearing would not be inteferred with by echo patterns, clearly reported having heard three shots.

Bang:---------------------------------Bang:------Bang

Tom,

Maybe it was this way:

Bang..........................Bang.Bang........Bang (4 shots)

This author may be Correct?

If not where & how so?

Proving Conspiracy

Look at the Zapruder Film

In Chapter 5, I mentioned that my curiosity had been aroused by Christian David’s description—in The Men Who Killed Kennedy—of the shots fired at President Kennedy and John Connally. According to David, there were "three guns, four shots, three hits, and one miss." Two shots hit Kennedy, one hit Connally, and one missed the car completely. Furthermore, two shots were fired simultaneously which explains why witnesses heard three shots.

After studying the Zapruder film, I have concluded that David’s version is absolutely correct. Not only is it correct, I realized that the Zapruder film alone proves in a legal sense that there was a conspiracy. All one has to do is look at the Zapruder film.

I highly recommend that anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination go to the nearest video store and rent the Zapruder film. Before viewing it, purge your mind of any pre-conceived notions. Forget what the so-called experts have told you and look at it with an open mind. You will see—as I did—two important things rarely discussed by the so-called assassination experts. First of all, it is quite obvious that Kennedy’s neck wound was caused by a different bullet than Connally’s wounds because there was a four second delay between the time Kennedy grabbed his neck and the time Connally reacted to being hit. The Warren Commission concluded that one bullet hit Kennedy in the neck and caused all of Connally’s wounds. This is known as the "Single Bullet Theory." Simply stated, the Warren Commission’s Single Bullet Theory is impossible.

Secondly, the Zapruder film shows that there must have been at least two gunmen because there was only a one-second delay between the time Connally reacted to being hit in the back and the time Kennedy was shot in the head. That simply was not enough time for one gunman to fire two shots. The Warren Report stated that a minimum of "2.3 seconds" is "necessary to operate the [Mannlicher-Carcano] rifle" to fire two consecutive shots.1 Using the government’s own logic, there had to have been two gunmen because Kennedy was hit in the head less than 2.3 seconds after Connally was hit. According to the government, this would be impossible for one gunman. Using this logic, the shot that caused Kennedy’s head wound could have come from the front or the back, but two gunmen would still have been required because of the one second delay between Connally’s shot in the back and Kennedy’s shot in the head.

The one-second delay between the second and third shots was corroborated by the eye-witness account of Mary Woodward, a junior reporter on the Dallas Morning News at the time of the assassination. In fact she wrote an article describing the assassination before it was even announced that Kennedy had died. The following is Woodward’s description— from an interview years later for The Men Who Killed Kennedy—of the shots she observed:

…One thing I am totally positive of in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other, they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot. …

(The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Cover-up, N. Turner)

We have an eye-witness account and a film of the assassination; both clearly indicate that the second and third shots immediate. As Mary Woodward stated, "It was almost as if one were an echo of the other." Again, the Warren Report stated that a minimum of 2.3 seconds delay is required between two consecutive shots from the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Keep in mind that Woodward’s observation that she heard three shots does not refute Christian David’s claim that there were actually four shots fired. David also stated that two shots were fired almost simultaneously. Hence, witnesses heard only three shots.

These facts are not complicated. They do not require an expert’s analysis. Any reasonable person of average intelligence can understand them. Yet the sponsors of Kennedy’s murder have trained the public to rely on expert "interpretation" of these simple facts. After viewing the Zapruder film for yourself, it will become clear that most of the so-called assassination researchers have confused the public for years on the notion of conspiracy. The sponsors of Kennedy’s murder have created a general state of public confusion by expressing from all sides so many complex opinions that the public has decided to have no opinion of any kind in matters of conspiracy.