The "Headshots"

[Bill Miller]

Yep!

For whatever reason, I have this inherent trait that I generally only ask questions of those who have the actual training and expertise to give properly evaluated and reasoned answers.

Great! How many blood spatter experts have you talked to before coming to the conclusion that its to be scoffed at???

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Yep!

For whatever reason, I have this inherent trait that I generally only ask questions of those who have the actual training and expertise to give properly evaluated and reasoned answers.

Great! How many blood spatter experts have you talked to before coming to the conclusion that its to be scoffed at???

Still having difficulty with the english language I see!

The "science" of blood spatter is a recognized field of forensic sciences, which, when used in conjunction with the forensic; ballistic; patholigical; and other physical evidence, and utilized in accordance with the applicable laws of physical sciences, is an excellent tool.

Blood Spatter determination by looking at the Z-film to determine directionality of bullets fired, happens to be "junk science".

Did you get and understand that Bill, or does it need to be put into a film so that perhaps you can grasp it?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Yep!

For whatever reason, I have this inherent trait that I generally only ask questions of those who have the actual training and expertise to give properly evaluated and reasoned answers.

Great! How many blood spatter experts have you talked to before coming to the conclusion that its to be scoffed at???

(Tom)

For whatever reason, I have this inherent trait that I generally only ask questions of those who have the actual training and expertise to give properly evaluated and reasoned answers

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

(Bill Miller)

Great! How many blood spatter experts have you talked to before coming to the conclusion that its to be scoffed at???

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

Actually! The question would seem to be more in line with exactly how many "true experts" have you actually talked to before believing the "science fiction" which you so readily accepted.

And, since I can read as well as comprehend quite readily (even at this advanced age), then I do not have to rely on what others tell me and/or what I may mistakenly conceive as being fact from watching the Z-film.

Or for that matter, re-runs of the movie "JFK".

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encque...er&ie=UTF-8

Dr. DiMaio is quite reknown for his books on forensics. Try it, reading and learning is like a whole new experience for some.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Rosemary Willis:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-5992653257480734740

[Bill Miller]

Still having difficulty with the english language I see!

The "science" of blood spatter is a recognized field of forensic sciences, which, when used in conjunction with the forensic; ballistic; patholigical; and other physical evidence, and utilized in accordance with the applicable laws of physical sciences, is an excellent tool.

Blood Spatter determination by looking at the Z-film to determine directionality of bullets fired, happens to be "junk science".

Did you get and understand that Bill, or does it need to be put into a film so that perhaps you can grasp it?

I am starting to think that you have never read a single word on blood spatter science. I am not talking about trying to see droplets of blood all over the car, but the release of matter upon the impact of a bullet. The Nix film captured the point of impact just ahead of the Zapruder camera and it is the initial release of matter that Sherry points out that is quite telling as to the direction that the shot came. As I recall, she showed high-speed photography detailing the pattern seen upon impact both going in and out of an object. So far you have not cited one expert who disagrees with her analysis. The fact is - you can't! The fact is that you know exactly what I am saying and is why you haven't posted a single reference to an expert in blood spatter science that disagrees with the principles of physics that Sherry explains in detail.

All I asked of you was an explanation and all I have seen so far is propaganda that has been void of data addressing the issue. You remind me of this person who once said to me that the book called 'The Divinci Code' had debunked the Bible. I asked if they had even read the Bible and they answered back, "No". If you ever talk to a Henry Lee or even Sherry and you go after them on how blood spatter science is bunk, then feel free to post the details of that discussion. Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

And, since I can read as well as comprehend quite readily (even at this advanced age), then I do not have to rely on what others tell me and/or what I may mistakenly conceive as being fact from watching the Z-film.

What has been raised as an issue of brain matter exploding into the air is something that can and is seen on the assassination films. What you are doing is trying to sell an idea that a second rock was thrown into the pond and no ripples on the water occurred ... and I'm not buying it. Sherry teaches blood spatter science to people like Wecht. So whether I spoke to one or two experts ... you have not cited a single one that disagrees with the physics that Sherry points out pertaining to the impact of a bullet slamming into brain matter. Ignorance is no defense IMO.

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

I am starting to think that you have never read a singe word on blood spatter science. I am not talking about trying to see droplets of blood all over the car, but the release of matter upon the impact of a bullet. The Nix film captured the point of impact just ahead of the Zapruder camera and it is the initial release of matter that Sherry points out that is quite telling as to the direction that the shot came.

[...]

you really are having trouble reading aren't you? Apparently, TPurvis quoted a rather popular practitioner of the art....eh?

The BLOODSTAIN per Sherry, for the 3rd time what bloodstain....?

Insofar as the Zapruder Film and Nix film are concerned, you have a bit of a problem, the Zapruder film has "serious" credibility problems, and the alleged NIX film was questioned when returned to the family. I believe that went something like this: "this is not the film my father (NIX) shot..."

[Bill Miller]

you really are having trouble reading aren't you? Apparently, TPurvis quoted a rather popular practitioner of the art....eh?

So good to see you again, David. Want to look foolish again ... no problem. Supposed you post in your next say-nothing response just what it was that Tom quoted? Tom mentioned reading a book ... I saw no quotes pertaining to the blood spatter science that Sherry discusses. So seeing how you have no problem reading ... I await the quote that you claim that I couldn't understand. (sigh~)

The BLOODSTAIN per Sherry, for the 3rd time what bloodstain....?

I think that even an 'oaf' could see that Tom was using a figure of speech when he mentioned the blood-stain, and that he wasn't saying that the film itself was stained with blood.

Insofar as the Zapruder Film and Nix film are concerned, you have a bit of a problem, the Zapruder film has "serious" credibility problems, and the alleged NIX film was questioned when returned to the family. I believe that went something like this: "this is not the film my father (NIX) shot..."

What credibility problems are there, David? The Zapruder film as been authenticated by the worlds leading expert in Kodachrome film. No witness to the event has ever said that those films show something that didn't happen. The only challenge to the credibility of those films comes from people like yourself who says 'the Zfilm is altered' - and 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. (You'd of made a good politician IMO) So maybe the credibility problem doesn't lay with the film(s), but rather with the double talkers who push paranoia in place of actual data. The films credibility isn't challenged by real experts, but rather by people who think rain sensors are CIA listening devices or how girls turn into boys within a film frame. Of course you must know this because you also said that you have seen no proof of alteration. (smile~)

Edited March 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Still having difficulty with the english language I see!

The "science" of blood spatter is a recognized field of forensic sciences, which, when used in conjunction with the forensic; ballistic; patholigical; and other physical evidence, and utilized in accordance with the applicable laws of physical sciences, is an excellent tool.

Blood Spatter determination by looking at the Z-film to determine directionality of bullets fired, happens to be "junk science".

Did you get and understand that Bill, or does it need to be put into a film so that perhaps you can grasp it?

I am starting to think that you have never read a single word on blood spatter science. I am not talking about trying to see droplets of blood all over the car, but the release of matter upon the impact of a bullet. The Nix film captured the point of impact just ahead of the Zapruder camera and it is the initial release of matter that Sherry points out that is quite telling as to the direction that the shot came. As I recall, she showed high-speed photography detailing the pattern seen upon impact both going in and out of an object. So far you have not cited one expert who disagrees with her analysis. The fact is - you can't! The fact is that you know exactly what I am saying and is why you haven't posted a single reference to an expert in blood spatter science that disagrees with the principles of physics that Sherry explains in detail.

All I asked of you was an explanation and all I have seen so far is propaganda that has been void of data addressing the issue. You remind me of this person who once said to me that the book called 'The Divinci Code' had debunked the Bible. I asked if they had even read the Bible and they answered back, "No". If you ever talk to a Henry Lee or even Sherry and you go after them on how blood spatter science is bunk, then feel free to post the details of that discussion. Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight.

"I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions"

(Al Carrier)

Now, let me figure this out. Carrier, a purportedlly highly qualilfied crime fighter, hand a gun.

The criminal, had a knife!

Carrier has managed to get stabbed by the perpetrator, on three different occassions, while he was in possession of a gun!

Thus, it would appear that Carrier might best consider bringing a gun and a knife, as those with the knives appear to be doing relatively well.

you go after them on how blood spatter science is bunk,

You do have difficulty with the english language, don't you?

Did they not have Special Ed/ ED classes when you were in school.

Please have somone read and explain the following to you:

The "science" of blood spatter is a recognized field of forensic sciences, which, when used in conjunction with the forensic; ballistic; patholigical; and other physical evidence, and utilized in accordance with the applicable laws of physical sciences, is an excellent tool.

Next up, which pretty well speaks for itself:

Blood Spatter determination by looking at the Z-film to determine directionality of bullets fired, happens to be "junk science".

Now, exactly how many times does one have to state something before you begin to understand it?

The Nix film captured the point of impact just ahead of the Zapruder camera and it is the initial release of matter that Sherry points out that is quite telling as to the direction that the shot came.

BS!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_to...high-speed.html

Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

note: In event that you are having difficulty with the highly complex term "forward momentum", then perhaps you should look up a 5th grader or two for assistance.

All I asked of you was an explanation

Dr. DiMaio's explanation of exactly what is seen in the Z-film too complex for you?

Sorry, but I ceased to teach on the 4th grade level long ago after the draft was ended.

all I have seen so far is propaganda that has been void of data addressing the issue.

O.I.C.!

Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

The Title too exceeded your abililty to understand that Dr. DiMaio's information was specifically addressing the Z313 impact to the head of JFK.

So far you have not cited one expert who disagrees with her analysis.

Well, from my limited understanding of the english language:

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

"Thus JFK’s head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear."

"Could the rearward lurch have been the result of a second bullet, from the front, as implied in JFK? No, for several reasons"

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

That most certainly, from my limited reading comprehension ability, appears to be a direct contradiction (disagreement) with the findings which you are attempting to hock on this forum.

This now so perplexing! Who does one believe?

1. Somone who has utilized some psuedo-scientific method of deriving an answer which suits their needs/agenda?

2. A recognized EXPERT who is also an MD, who has also taken into consideration the other essential elements of information necessary to derive a reliable conclusion, and an individual who literally "wrote the book" on evaluation of blood spatter as a scientific approach to resolution of gunshot wound injuries.

I will have to sleep on that for a long, long time. OK, nap is over, guess who I will go with?

Lastly, might I recommend that you go down to some local slaughter house and take your favorite gun.

Shoot a few hogs and/or cows in the head, as we used to do around here all the time, and you just may actually learn a thing or two, since you apparantly can not derive what is and is not BS by the written word.

[Miles Scull]

you just may actually learn a thing or two, since you apparantly can not derive what is and is not BS by the written word.

That is the "written word" via reading?

Rosemary Willis:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-5992653257480734740

Great clip, Wim. First time I have heard Rosemary Willis. This tallies with & reinforces Mary Woodward's testimony which she made on the 22nd!

Looks pretty clear:

Bang.......................BangBang............Bang (4 shots sounding like 3 to some witnesses)

QUOTE

"For example, suppose there was an actual (and there is) team participant witness who reported that he & his associates had prepared personally "undercharged" rounds for this specific occasion." - Scull

So we are supposing again, hey! I think supposing is what got you to erroneously thinking that Bowers could see people standing on the knoll steps or that Sam Holland ran off the underpass within the first 20 seconds following the shooting. But before you get to supposing much further, lets supposed that you know which it is that makes a bigger more noticeable impact on the head ... a high speed moving bullet or a slow (under-charged) moving bullet??? I would think this would be important in a supposed inquiry.

Bill Miller

"For example, suppose there was an actual (and there is) team participant witness who reported that he & his associates had prepared personally "undercharged" rounds for this specific occasion." - Scull

So we are supposing again, hey!

No. That is not correct. You have failed to read carefully. I am not supposing: I know. If you look again, you will see that you overlooked or did not comprehend the phrase in red "and there is."

This means that there actualy was a person who made undercharged rounds who was at Dealey Plaza on the 22nd.

Therefore, we are not supposing. You are.

I think supposing is what got you to erroneously thinking that Bowers could see people standing on the knoll steps

Again, this not correct. I never thought that, nor did I ever say that. You are making that up. Why?

or that Sam Holland ran off the underpass within the first 20 seconds following the shooting.

Correct. But I very soon realized that Foster ran off the underpass instantly, disproving Hoffman's tale.

But before you get to supposing much further,

To repeat: YOU are supposing, not I. I know... You do not.

lets supposed that you know which it is that makes a bigger more noticeable impact on the head

Again, you suppose. Not I. I never said that a bullet impacted the rear of the head.

... a high speed moving bullet or a slow (under-charged) moving bullet??? I would think this would be important in a supposed inquiry.

Very good. You have indeed thought something important.

In future it would be better if you checked the facts carefully first before stating things that are obviously wrong.

Edit: grammar

Edited March 22, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And, since I can read as well as comprehend quite readily (even at this advanced age), then I do not have to rely on what others tell me and/or what I may mistakenly conceive as being fact from watching the Z-film.

What has been raised as an issue of brain matter exploding into the air is something that can and is seen on the assassination films. What you are doing is trying to sell an idea that a second rock was thrown into the pond and no ripples on the water occurred ... and I'm not buying it. Sherry teaches blood spatter science to people like Wecht. So whether I spoke to one or two experts ... you have not cited a single one that disagrees with the physics that Sherry points out pertaining to the impact of a bullet slamming into brain matter. Ignorance is no defense IMO.

Ignorance is no defense IMO

As brother Jesse Jackson is known to utilize: "Common Ground" has been reached in that one can be assured that I am in full agreement with the above statement.

Now:

Dr. DiMaio states absolutely that the indications, as seen in the Z-film of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK, have absollutely nothing to do with a shot fired from the front.

And, since Dr. DiMaio happens to be an absolute EXPERT in this area, then rest assured that I will go with his understanding of the subject matter.

Now: Someone else, who's erronous hypothesis is the matter of discussion here, makes claims which directly contradict (go against/disagree with) Dr. DiMaio's evaluation of the evidence.

And yet:

http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/page03.html

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

A bullet interacts with the head in several stages (17).

1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.

2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as backspatter.

3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through the brain.

4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary expanding cavity.

5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped exit hole.

6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped exit wound.

7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter, the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final size depending on how large the internal pressures became.

http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/references.html

REFERENCES:

17. Gunshot Wounds : Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J. M. Di Maio

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

Certainly appears as one of those lack of oxy-moron's to me.

My old professors would have eaten my lunch had I come up with some unsupported hypothesis, and thereafter utilized as reference to support said hypothesis, the works of an individual who's written textbook as well as published opinions were in direct contradiction and agreement with what my hypothesis stated.

Therefore, I am in full agreement that "Ignorance is no defense IMO"

Kind of like stating: All scientific evidence states that the earth is an oval sphere. Therefore the earth is square!

And, what is even worse, is actually believing it without checking it out for onself.

[Don Bailey]

The Two Head Shots IMO...

[Don Bailey]

The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

OK!

Now, just in order that we ALL may establish a few research parameters:

1. Did you derive this conclusion through your own independent research of the facts?

2. Did you derive this conclusion because, not unlike the "Blood Spatter" conversations, someone else told you and you just took their word for it?

3. Did you derive this conclusion by looking at the photo, and just making it up for yourself without any verification as to what is represented in the photograph?

4. Other? (fill in the blank):_________________________________________________________________________

Provided that you are willing to provide an answer, that is not reversible, then we just might proceed onward and answer a few pertinent questions related to your provided autopsy photogtraph.

As, it holds the answers to many questions!

[Bill Miller]

'Don Bailey' post='141358' date='Mar 23 2008, 09:04 AM']The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

OK!

Now, just in order that we ALL may establish a few research parameters:

1. Did you derive this conclusion through your own independent research of the facts?

2. Did you derive this conclusion because, not unlike the "Blood Spatter" conversations, someone else told you and you just took their word for it?

3. Did you derive this conclusion by looking at the photo, and just making it up for yourself without any verification as to what is represented in the photograph?

4. Other? (fill in the blank):_________________________________________________________________________

Provided that you are willing to provide an answer, that is not reversible, then we just might proceed onward and answer a few pertinent questions related to your provided autopsy photogtraph.

As, it holds the answers to many questions!

I think is used the same method as you do, Tom.