Jump to content
The Education Forum

EOP v. Cowlick


Recommended Posts

In fact, it is not even that difficult to pinpoint the EOP entry point from the lateral X-ray.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0032a.htm

"upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex

and the smaller (puncture) wound of the occiput."

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

And, despite what some self-proclaimed researchers may state, it is of considerably benefit to discuss these issues with Dr. Boswell, since:

A. He was there!

B. He physically was involved in the autopsy!

C. He made the referenced drawing which was meant to demonstrate the fracture lines which radiated from the EOP entry wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Keep it simple!

"A"---Section of "skull cap" blown off the top of JFK's head as a result of the Z313 (Second Shot) impact to the Cowlick vicinity of the head, which can be seen in the Z-film hanging over (attached to scalp tissue) on the right side of JFK's head after the Z313 impact. ( Survey Station 4+65.3)

"B"---That fragment of skull which was fragmented from the rear (extended into the occipital region) of the skull of JFK as a result of the Third/Last/Final/EOP entry shot which impacted down directly in front of James Altgens position/location.

(30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313 impact and located at Survey Station 4+95)

This "blowout" of the rear of the skull can not be readily observed in the Z-film due to the forward leaning, head down position of JFK at the time of the impact.

The separation of this portion of the skull is responsible for those who observed the rear/base of the head (occipital) injury to JFK's head.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Actually! About the only "bonehead" is the one who fails to recognize that the photograph (#44), as stated, demonstrates the entrance in the posterior skull and the associated beveling of the interior table of the skull, as well as the fragment exit in the Parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull, with the scalp reflected.

(The "little" hole v. the "Big" hole)

And, since a photograph can not demonstrate the difference in sizes of two seperate holes, without also demonstrating/showing both of the holes, then even us swamp rats down here in the backwoods can figure that one out.

Be sure and come back and visit when you have actually learned something Pat!

Someone is "getting close"!

But it ain't Pat Speer!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...4f6f71513d6eaf9

"Right after I posted a copy of F8 with the semicircular beveled defect

highlighted (for your attention), you wrote back, "That's very deep in the

cranial vault, not anywhere near the cowlick area."

You were 100% correct, that defect is very deep in the cranium--and it's

actally near the EOP. Four independent replications of F8 have proven

that. The problem for you is that Fiorentino, Durnavich, the HSCA, and

just about everyone else familiar with this issue agree that same

semicircular beveled defect that I highlighted in F8 is in fact, the

entry. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...