headwounds and ballistics - a back-to-basics question or two

[Glenn Nall]

OK, I'll risk a little ignorance in this particular area in order to try to understand a little more.

First off, I'm utterly convinced of a considerably large conspiracy involving several 'high level' interests. And it's not so much because of the events leading up to the crime as it is because of the cover-up and otherwise pathetic actions of so many people afterwards. I don't believe that any solution to bullet paths, etc. can have much bearing on the solution to the crime at this point, other than to tell us what we already know. (Although some vindication would be kinda sweet - i'd love little more than to say "see, i told you so" to Peter Effin' Jennings and Dan Rather, et al.)

One of the first books i read on this was by one of the Dr's from Parkland describing the scene and the wounds from that day. I've never doubted that from that point forward the cover-up began and that wound discrepancies were notable. And to me, all of the rifle shot replications and studies on human bodies, etc, means very little. I know lots of soldiers who have shot people, and they all say bullets and people do very different things when introduced to each other. So research be damned. I know what I see in the film.

And i want to ask some of you if i'm missing something.

Records today state quite clearly that several, if not all, of the doctors, saw the gaping wound in the back of his head. Other witnesses state the same thing, even referring to Z313 while doing so. The problem is, I refuse to be told what I'm looking at, and what I'm seeing is his head clearly and suddenly rocked backwards at the exact same time the front-right part of his skull is exploding. People have said that the rear of his skull is visibly damaged even in this film, but i just don't see it.

what i'm hoping someone can tell me is if i'm not seeing some wound in the back of his head in the film. is that not the front-right of his head blowing outward and upward? IS THERE a gaping wound in the back of his head?

and maybe someone can say something about the existence and behaviors of exploding bullets (many tiny bullet fragments in the brain and skull of JFK...) versus simple metal-jacketed ones like the MC fired (which are clearly indestructible when going through ribs, wristbones and legbones). the explosion i see could be the exit of a bullet or the entrance of an exploding bullet - or a combination of the two. which is what i think, mostly.

thanks good people,

Glenn

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology

[Glenn Nall]

http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology

I've respected and appreciated much of what i've read of yours in here, Robert - particularly your signature which symbolizes the clarity i'm looking for.

A link to a 21st century ammunitions website doesn't really go that far in the way of helping me with my confusion about the 'large, gaping wound in the right, rear portion" of the President's head or the apparent explosion in the front of it or exploding ammunition from the 1960's (i'm not going to directly mention James Files' Fireball cause i don't know what i think about that yet - of course, some 'more educated' input on that is as welcome as anything else).

Thanks, tho.

I'd really like to know what I'm not seeing, or a clearer explanation of what i am seeing...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, as you said, the Zapruder film contradicts what the majority of doctors at Parkland observed. It is easy for WC apologists to say these doctors were unable to accurately locate the wound at the rear of the head, as JFK was lying on his back but, if there was a large blowout in JFK's temple, these same doctors would have been looking directly into it. Oddly, no doctor reported a blowout in JFK's temple.

If JFK had been hit in the temple with an "exploding" bullet, and that bullet, on impact, caused the spray of material seen at z313, there would be no blowout at the back of the skull, simply because most of the bullet would have come apart at the entrance, and would not have penetrated the brain; pushing a large shock wave ahead of it.

Hollow point bullets and the frangible bullets seen at DRT Ammo do not disintegrate on impact with skull bone. I have shot deer with 110 grain .308 hollow point bullets, and they make a tiny entrance wound in a deer's skull no bigger than the regular soft point bullets I normally hunt with. The mercury filled bullets that James Files claimed to have used would be, by necessity, hollow point bullets as well and would function in a wound similarly to the frangible bullets marketed by DRT Ammo. In reality, I do not know if mercury filled bullets even exist. The principle is sound, though, and I believe such a bullet would also make a small entrance wound in a skull. Head shots are only effective if the bullet penetrates the skull intact, and reaches the brain before expanding or fragmenting.

In all the deer I shot with hollow points, I never once saw a large blowout in a skull at the site of the entrance wound. Such a thing actually seems impossible, as the bullet creates a high pressure shock wave ahead of it, not behind it. The closest I ever saw was a deer I shot in the side of the head. In this case, the blowout occurred at the top of the head, almost 90° away from the path of the bullet.

Suffice it to say there is simply no way to reconcile what is seen at z313 in the Zapruder film with the large gaping wound seen at the right rear of JFK's skull.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Glenn Nall]

right, that's what i'm thinking. there has to be some reconciliation. Not just the doctors, Clint Hill and others have said they observed the same thing. If so many have seen a rear wound, i almost have to tell myself that Z is just in too poor a condition to see more clearly what's happening at 313...?

then there're the xrays - fake ones vs real ones. and the photos - fake vs real.

back to 313, tho - i'm really tempted to think that it's quite possible that 2 bullets hit at the same time (the sound tapes and proximity of shots 3 and 4 support this idea), throwing the study of blood cast evidence out the window. considering 2 simultaneous bullets is not forcing the facts, to me - it's really more of a sound explanation for other questions unanswered...

you cite Clint Hill's testimony - do you or do you not believe there was a 'gaping' wound to the rear...?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Robert Prudhomme]

Two simultaneous bullets might give us the effect seen in z313 but, why did no medical personnel at Parkland report seeing a large wound in the right temple? As seen in the frames immediately following z313, there appears to be a large "bag" hanging down from the temple. How could such a thing be missed by doctors?

I believe there is a great deal of evidence pointing to a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, and a limited amount of evidence to the contrary.

[Ron Ecker]

Two simultaneous bullets might give us the effect seen in z313 but, why did no medical personnel at Parkland report seeing a large wound in the right temple? As seen in the frames immediately following z313, there appears to be a large "bag" hanging down from the temple. How could such a thing be missed by doctors?

I believe there is a great deal of evidence pointing to a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, and a limited amount of evidence to the contrary.

I believe the most common explanation of why the doctors did not see a large wound in the right temple is that Jackie closed up the wound during the ride to the hospital. (She testified to the effect that she was trying to hold his head together.) By the time the doctors saw JFK, the temple wound was sealed enough by coagulation or whatever that it wasn't noticeable by the doctors in their haste.

[Glenn Nall]

Two simultaneous bullets might give us the effect seen in z313 but, why did no medical personnel at Parkland report seeing a large wound in the right temple? As seen in the frames immediately following z313, there appears to be a large "bag" hanging down from the temple. How could such a thing be missed by doctors?

I believe there is a great deal of evidence pointing to a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, and a limited amount of evidence to the contrary.

thanks, in fact - i can see what appears to be a large 'flap' hanging loosely there and am glad it's been pointed out by you now. just want to be sure of what i think i'm seeing.

I like Ron's suggestion following, too - that Jackie likely put it back in place and then coagulation, etc pretty much held it in place.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Oh, I see, Jackie just put in back in place, and then coagulation, etc. pretty much held it in place. Right. Have either of you ever seen a skull blown out before?

Think really hard about how many fractured bones there would have been hanging out of that temple wound, not to mention the fact there were several missing skull fragments that were found on the street. I seriously doubt Jackie could have just "put it all back together" and none of the doctors at Parkland would have even noticed that half of JFK's brains had been blown out his temple.

If there was not a large hole in the back of the head, and the one on the temple was hidden, how did any of these good doctors even know JFK had a large head wound?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ron Ecker]

Think really hard about how many fractured bones there would have been hanging out of that temple wound, not to mention the fact there were several missing skull fragments that were found on the street. I seriously doubt Jackie could have just "put it all back together" and none of the doctors at Parkland would have even noticed that half of JFK's brains had been blown out his temple.

If there was not a large hole in the back of the head, and the one on the temple was hidden, how did any of these good doctors even know JFK had a large head wound?

Maybe I've missed something, but unless you're a proponent of the Z-film alteration theory and believe that the temple wound was painted in or otherwise faked, what is your speculation as to why the doctors failed to see the temple wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe they failed to see a large wound on JFK's temple for the simple fact there was no large head wound on the temple.

[Ron Ecker]

I believe they failed to see a large wound on JFK's temple for the simple fact there was no large head wound on the temple.

Then I assume you believe the temple wound in the Z film isn't real.

[Glenn Nall]

I believe they failed to see a large wound on JFK's temple for the simple fact there was no large head wound on the temple.

Then I assume you believe the temple wound in the Z film isn't real.

that and he apparently wanted another opportunity to flame when it was completely unnecessary. kinda makes me wanna think twice before i ask more questions in here. or perhaps address them to the more civilized...?

[Mark Knight]

I'm still having trouble reconciling the Z-film with what the witnesses said...the ones who mentioned a wound above and BEHIND JFK's ear, on the head. The Z-film seems to show a flap of skin, skill, etc., that was above and IN FRONT OF the ear. Until we reconcile that, none of the other pieces of the puzzle will fit, either.

[Glenn Nall]

right, Mark - that's really the whole problem, isn't it. the wounds as they are described by many reliable witnesses VS. the wounds are they are portrayed in video (suspect) and postmortem photographs (suspect) and pm. xrays (suspect). These artifacts are all suspect - and i only say 'suspect', not false or authentic - because of evidence of chain-of-custody deceit and some visual anomalies.

i've never given the altered zFilm any real consideration until last night when i read, for the first time, Doug Horne's very believable article on the actual chain of custody of the film immediately following the Event; and the very believable, separate accounts of the camera-original events at the CIA's NPIC before LIFE had the "films" Monday.

Does anyone remember "And Gates" and "Or Gates" (these are not obscure Government Scandals)? These were the beginning of what we know as logic circuits, right? "1's" and "0's", either or, if else... To me many arguments in this murder case, and esp the one for or against an altered film, come down to an "either or" -

Either Mr Horne is making all that up, or he's not. The authentic film traditionalists seem to have very little to say about this chain-of-custody problem, or about this article. I can't imagine anyone saying "all that's a load of hogwash, unbelievable on its face". I cannot imagine much of that story at all being ignored as insubstantial. I'm not yet fully convinced of an altered film by the SS or the CIA, but as I ask myself how I could not be after reading the article, I have no answer to that.

If Doug Horne is telling the truth, there's simply no argument. A BOATLOAD of controversy regarding head wounds, bullets - autopsy discrepancies - disappears. Not the details, of course, as we would like (i wanna know who pulled the triggers!) but the overall is explained.

If Doug Horne is telling the truth, it all makes sense.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Glenn Nall