Kenneth A. Rahn

[Shanet Clark]

Great post, Bill

The avulsed (shot out) skull parts on the back of JFK's

head is the key evidence in the whole conspiracy.

Shot from the front.

(and other directions)

Shanet

[Tim Carroll]

On this forum - someone like Tony [did you mean "Tim"?] who has leaned towards the classic gunman figure at least considered the scaling and foreshortening effect between the Murry photo and the Nix film before being so quick to think there was some alteration at play....  It's a simple rule of physics that says that when applied force is given to an object that it will avulse the exiting surface in the direction the penetrating force was moving. If we stick our finger through a piece of paper - the paper avulses/pushes outward in the direction that the penetrating force is being applied. The bones on the back of JFK's head were avulsed to the rear, thus the bullet was traveling front to back....  Mass mistakeness is what they must call it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe this should be termed the "Hanging Chad Theory of the JFK Assassination." I love that term, "Mass Mistakeness." I fear we will see too much "mass mistakeness" this coming Tuesday.

Tim

[Bill Miller]

Great post, Bill

The avulsed (shot out) skull  parts on the back of JFK's

head is the key evidence in the whole conspiracy.

Shot from the front.

(and other directions)

Shanet

Here is part of what I said about the avulsion on Lancer and peoples misunderstanding as to why the hole is not seen on the Zapruder film. I am attaching some of the cleanest images of the Zapruder film showing this avulsion. Particular interest should be given to Z321, Z335, and Z337. (Allow the enlargement function to come up for a closer inspection)

We see the bone plate and from where it came because it was so large and the sun illuminated the inner area of the skull. The avulsion is a different matter. The bones being sprung outward is what allowed an opening to be viewed through the hair when seen from behind. Some people forget that the hole seen at Parkland was a result of the opening from these fractured bones being avulsed outward. By the time the body had gotten to Bethesda it appears that some of these fractured bones had either been removed or had fallen off because then it is referred to as a large hole without the mentioning of the avulsed bones. When we view some of the cleanest images of the Zapruder film we cannot even see facial detail, so to expect to see the individual avulsed bones on the back of the head with any clarity is not a reasonable expectation. To use such an argument for there not being a large wound to the back of the skull is even more unreasonable under these conditions. It's the conical shape of the back of the President's head that tells the story and supports the rear head wound. There is no doubt in my mind that this is why Arlen Specter avoided any indepth discussion by the Dallas doctors concerning the wound each time a Physician brought it up. It is also fair to assume why the HSCA was given a false report that said that no Bethesda personnel had seen such a wound.

Edited October 29, 2004 by Bill Miller

[John Korienek]

Wrone believes the Z film is genuine. His book has been

discredited by Jim Fetzer, I believe.

Jack

Jack - this may appear to be a zinger and maybe it is, but Fetzer's book didn't do anything but make Wrone's book look good despite Wrone making some silly suppositions like it maybe being Oswald in the doorway of the TSBD in Altgens number 6 photograph. And as far as DelleRosa's site and it being too hot - CT's also got the hell off it because it was getting to be a rabid photo and film alteration site. Just like the train window post you put on this site ... had that of been made on the DelleRosa site, then there would have been a handful of half-wits joined in and started harping about someone being a disinformationist who disagreed with your observation without ever looking to see if what was being said was true or not. On this forum - someone like Tim who has leaned towards the classic gunman figure at least considered the scaling and foreshortening effect between the Murry photo and the Nix film before being so quick to think there was some alteration at play.

As far as Rahn goes - there is an argument that he, nor any LN's can make in their favor and that is over the avulsed bones on the back of Kennedy's head. It's a simple rule of physics that says that when applied force is given to an object that it will avulse the exiting surface in the direction the penetrating force was moving. If we stick our finger through a piece of paper - the paper avulses/pushes outward in the direction that the penetrating force is being applied. The bones on the back of JFK's head were avulsed to the rear, thus the bullet was traveling front to back. The Government dealt with this by ignoring the large hole on the back of JFK's head altogether. Doctor after Doctor mentioned this avulsion to Arlen Specter and Specter quickly moved on as if he had no interest in talking about this wound. The reason was quite simple - the more detail that is given to it - the more one has top address why such a wound is not seen on the autopsy photographs. When the HSCA took up their investigation - they were given a falsified report saying that no Bethesda personnel claimed to have seen this large hole in the back of the President's head. It was only after the HSCA had finished their work that it was discovered that in fact each and every person at Bethesda who saw Kennedy's head wound had described the large hole as being there. Tanenbaum talked about this on one of the most recent MWKK series. By someone offering that falsified report to the HSCA - they were able to make it appear as if all the Dallas medical personnel and witnesses had merely been mistaken about this large avulsed wound on the back of JFK's head. That sentiment of everyone being mistaken about the wound still lives on today even though the mortician who prepared Kennedy's body said that he had to place a rubber pad over the large hole in the back of Kennedy's skull so the head would look right as it laid on the coffin's pillow. Most LNr's don't even know these things and some do, but have an agenda for pretending they don't know them or dismissing them altogether. People can argue most of the evidence on the JFK assassination and come up with some kind of spin in their favor, but the one area that takes nothing but faith to make the lone assassin scenario look plausible is over the ignoring the large avulsed wound to the back of JFK's head. Now to do this they have to assume that all those at JFK's autopsy and the mortician that prepared the body for burial were also mistaken. Mass mistakeness is what they must call it. Taken such a position only makes them look foolish to about everyone but themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill,

In your post you refer more than once to the "hole", or large "hole" in the back of the President's head. I was wondering, in your opinion, if the appearance of this hole came about merely because of the avulsed bone structure, or do you think this could also have been formed by the loss of actual bone (Harper fragment, e.g.) and brain and blood matter ejecta from that wound? I am thinking that if you believe there was no actual loss of skull bone, blood, or brain matter, then you would need to explain what it may have been that struck Hargis so forcefully, and a few others, I believe. Just checking to see if I have got some of the facts straight. Thanks for any response.

John

[Pamela Brown]

Ken Rahn's pages seem to have gone missing: http://www.search-elnk.net/search/?q=http%3A//www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Resolving_the_logical_incompatibility.html&r=&t=0

Does anyone know if he is still alive?

[Chris Newton]

Pamela,

I don't know anything about Ken's status but "the wayback machine" seems to have several of his pages archived:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/*

[James DiEugenio]

His site had some value since he had archived those early articles on the Warren Commission by people like Sauvage.