Jump to content
The Education Forum

Where is the massive back head wound?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ashton,

I can see why you are unable to see the avlusion (not evulsion) in your Zapruder images for I can hardly tell that you are even viewing JFK and his wife in those poor blury images. Why did you opt to distort them so badly?

There is just enough motion blur on the good copy images that makes seeing the individual bone fragments protruding up through the hair impossible, but if you look at JFK's head in silhouette you can see the avuslion. Below is such a view where the natural contour of the President's head is disrupted by the bones being sprung outward.

As Jackie's white glove comes off the President's left shoulder it offers a backdrop that allows one to see the smooth contour of the Presidents's head near the neck before the abrupt left turn outward as the bones are now sprung opened in the occipital region of the skull.

With JFK's head turned even more towards Zapruder's camera the coning shape of the head becomes even more visible. The President's head is clearly misshapen in a way that reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons when someone had a blast of gunpowder go off in their face.

And no matter how poorly one tries to hide the deformity by degrading the image - the coning shape is still present when seen at certain angles to the camera.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see why you are unable to see the avlusion [sic] (not evulsion)

Ouch. Bill, that really hurt.

I'm absolutely heartbroken that you didn't get, or appreciate, my little word play on avulsion (not avlusion), emulsion, and evulsion. I did it just for you. Here's a hint: it drew you out immediately, didn't it? You'll have to get somebody else to explain it to you further.

I can hardly tell that you are even viewing JFK and his wife in those poor blury images. Why did you opt to distort them so badly?
We mere plebians have to work with what we've got, and those were jpeg images, so have jpeg artifacts. There was sufficient information there for my purposes. And your oblique and utterly false accusation that I intentionally distored the images is noted. You are some piece of work, Snidely.

Nothing was done to the images but to enlarge them with Genuine Fractals Pro and run Photoshop's Shadows and Highlights on them. Period.

There is just enough motion blur on the good copy images that makes seeing the individual bone fragments protruding up through the hair impossible

Now, isn't that convenient for you. It seems, somehow, that almost every one of your claims relies entirely on "evidence" that the human eye can't see. You have the entire domain of noseeums cornered. Therefore we all just have to take your word for it, right? Because you have knowledge that clearly is beyond the perceptual capabilities of mere low-class mortals.

So continue: tell me more about what isn't visible, but that you know is there anyway:

but if you look at JFK's head in silhouette you can see the avuslion.
Um, that would be "avulsion." Not "avuslion." And I don't see it.
Below is such a view where the natural contour of the President's head is disrupted by the bones being sprung outward.

As Jackie's white glove comes off the President's left shoulder it offers a backdrop that allows one to see the smooth contour of the Presidents's head near the neck before the abrupt left turn outward as the bones are now sprung opened in the occipital region of the skull.

Well, Bill, I have a little confession to make. It goes back to the word "evulsion" in my subtitle—but I doubt that you'll ever figure yout how. Still, I feel the need to bare my soul, and I want to do it right here in front of everybody, and make a permanent record of my confession.

You see, it's this way: I did have better images of the frames I showed in the first message. I admit it. I make a clean breast of it.

Not only that, but I knew damned well when I posted them that you would rush in there to do everything you could to make me look like a fool. I knew it was inevitable. It was like opening a can of tuna around cats.

And even that isn't all I have to confess: I have to confess that I knew exactly which images from Zapruder you would post to "prove" to the world that there was an "abrupt left turn outward" of JFK's head. which you've claimed was "bones now sprung open." Oh, yes. Yes, I knew. I did it with premeditation.

And my only hope for forgiveness from the research community at large is this: that with this I intend to prove once and for all time just how duplicitous you are. I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lengths to which you will go, with malice aforethought, to deceive others by twisting and manipulating visual "evidence," by selectively showing "evidence" that serves your own malicious purposes to make people believe what patently is not true.

And I will succeed, right here in this message, or I will fail miserably and fall on my sword in the attempt. Without further comment, here are better versions of three of the same images I first posted above (I can't post all five, because the forum won't let me do that, and still be able to post two later ones below—stay tuned):

Zapruder 326:

newzapruder326.jpg

Zapruder 327:

newzapruder327.jpg

Zapruder 333:

newzapruder323.jpg

There is no "avulsion." There are no "bones protruding." There is no "massive hole" in the back of the head. There is nothing but hair.

But what did you post? What did you stick in everyone's face to "prove" that there was "an avulsion" to the back of the head?

Well, I'm about to post the very same frame you put up with the big white flashing arrow. But first I'm going to post the image two film frames before it: Zapruder frame 335, enhanced as described above:

newzapruder335HAND.jpg

To the forum readers: what do you see? (I'm not asking you, Miller. I don't give a damn what you ever say again.) What is on the back of JFK's head near the neck?

Clearly, it's Jacqueline Kennedy's gloved right hand.

And here is what Bill Miller maliciously posted, Zapruder frame 337, to make you believe that there was an "abrupt left turn outward" in John F. Kennedy's head—and in the process backing up the exact government-issue "Official Story" of a huge back head wound that nobody outside of the government coerced, blackmailed, or paid "witnesses" ever saw. I've enhanced the image the exact same way I did the others:

newzapruder337HANDSTREAK.jpg

So how did Bill Miller create a completely phony, fraudulent "abrupt left turn outward" of the head to deceive you with? Simple: by carefully picking the exact frame where Jacqueline Kennedy's white-gloved hand has been jerked away from the back of John Kennedy's head in horror (Miller told you it had been on JFK's left shoulder), and is outstretched, leaving enough of a white streak on the film to create the OPTICAL ILLUSION that Bill Miller, with malice aforethought, tried to pawn off on you as an "avulsion" to the back of the head.

And there it is. Let your own eyes decide.

And whether you can find in your heart to forgive me for my tactics here or not is up to you. But if I've belled this cat for even one person in this world, if I keep even one more person from ever being fooled by such malevolent immaculate deception—from someone like Bill Miller who claims to be a superior "expert" <SPIT!>—then my head will rest easy, with or without forgiveness.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites

>The forum software had created a duplicate post for some reason, thus I deleted it.<

Hi Bill,

I believe previewing your post alleviates this strange phenomenon.

Nix frame and 337

Please use the "click to view the full image"

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing was done to the images but to enlarge them with Genuine Fractals Pro and run Photoshop's Shadows and Highlights on them. Period.
What ever you did to them - they are riduculous!
Now, isn't that convenient for you. It seems, somehow, that almost every one of your claims relies entirely on "evidence" that the human eye can't see. You have the entire domain of noseeums cornered. Therefore we all just have to take your word for it, right? Because you have knowledge that clearly is beyond the perceptual capabilities of mere low-class mortals.

I can't see the space between two sections of a draw bridge when it is up, but I have enough brains to know that its there. John Kennedy didn't have the rear portion of his head looking like the butt-end of a watermellon before he took that shot to the head and out of copmmon sense I know for a fact that the head doesn't swell in milliseconds, but to be sure I've consulted some experts to verify what I already knew. If you cannot see the bulge on the back of JFK's head, then you are not capable of discussing the photographical evidence IMO.

Well, Bill, I have a little confession to make. It goes back to the word "evulsion" in my subtitle—but I doubt that you'll ever figure yout how. Still, I feel the need to bare my soul, and I want to do it right here in front of everybody, and make a permanent record of my confession.

You see, it's this way: I did have better images of the frames I showed in the first message. I admit it. I make a clean breast of it.

Not only that, but I knew damned well when I posted them that you would rush in there to do everything you could to make me look like a fool. I knew it was inevitable. It was like opening a can of tuna around cats.

Let me see if I have this straight - you were afraid I'd ridicule your evidence, so you opted to use the poorer images to make your case .... and to think you were worried that I'd make you look foolish!
And my only hope for forgiveness from the research community at large is this: that with this I intend to prove once and for all time just how duplicitous you are. I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lengths to which you will go, with malice aforethought, to deceive others by twisting and manipulating visual "evidence," by selectively showing "evidence" that serves your own malicious purposes to make people believe what patently is not true.

Ashton, I welcome it, but my advice to you is not trying to do it with your poorer images.

There is no "avulsion." There are no "bones protruding." There is no "massive hole" in the back of the head. There is nothing but hair.
So the 30 witnesses in and around Parkland were all mistaken ... is that your official position? Ed Deloux in response #5 posted a blow-up of the back of JFK's head as seen from the Nix location - what to you think that bulge is all about ... possibly a beenie cap being worn by the President or is it the bones sprung opened on the occipital area of the head just as the Parkland doctors described it. Thanks to Ed for posting that view. I posted enhancements of the same on Lancer years ago and you saved me the trouble of having to go to my office and retrieve them. The hole was a result of the bone fractures being sprung opened - read the doctors testimonies.
To the forum readers: what do you see? (I'm not asking you, Miller. I don't give a damn what you ever say again.) What is on the back of JFK's head near the neck?

Clearly, it's Jacqueline Kennedy's gloved right hand.

And here is what Bill Miller maliciously posted, Zapruder frame 337, to make you believe that there was an "abrupt left turn outward" in John F. Kennedy's head—and in the process backing up the exact government-issue "Official Story" of a huge back head wound that nobody outside of the government coerced, blackmailed, or paid "witnesses" ever saw. I've enhanced the image the exact same way I did the others:

So how did Bill Miller create a completely phony, fraudulent "abrupt left turn outward" of the head to deceive you with? Simple: by carefully picking the exact frame where Jacqueline Kennedy's white-gloved hand has been jerked away from the back of John Kennedy's head in horror (Miller told you it had been on JFK's left shoulder), and is outstretched, leaving enough of a white streak on the film to create the OPTICAL ILLUSION that Bill Miller, with malice aforethought, tried to pawn off on you as an "avulsion" to the back of the head.

Ashton Gray

In Jim Garrisons's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" it reads ... "Let Justice be done, though the Heavens fall". Here is where you fall flat on your face, Ashton. I have spent countless hours studying all the assassination films and I am going to show you why I told you to go study the photographical record more before blowing off your mouth about things you know nothing about.

The clip that you call a fraud was created to show that when Jackie's white glove pulled back away from JFK's head - the abrupt turn I spoke of was still there. If you took the time to follow Jackie's movements from Z255/Z256 (equal to Altgens 6) you would have noticed that she never slid her hand off her husbands left forearm until after the head shot. Jackie's white glove is passing over JFK's left shoulder and not on the back of his neck as you have wrongly claimed. The Zapruder film alone told me this, but lets not just take my word for it or the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Had you cross referenced the assassination images like I have done so many times, you would have seen Jackie's white gloved hand pass between JFK's head and the Nix camera as she brought it back and around the President's head from over his left shoulder. So your interpretation that Jackie's white glove was on the back of JFK's head is the result of you not being thorough in your research mixed with piss-poor photographic interpretation skills.

From the "Missing Nix Frame" thread / post 266 / Frank Aqbat

The full version of Frank's clip in real time can be seen at the link below. (Look for post #266)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...8660&st=255

Is there any more allegations of deceit you'd like to make based on your lack of thorough research, Ashton?

Bill Miller[/font]

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gary Loughran

Hi Bill & Ashton,

I've been reading the views here with interest as it is an area of the assassination which I'm having great difficulty reconciling myself. I have no fixed opinion on where the fatal headshot was administered from. I did have preconceptions and was always convinced of a knoll shot. However, on joining this forum I vowed to have a clean canvass on which I would draw my opinions as they formed.

Is there any chance you (plural) can wipe the slate clean and discuss your findings further on this thread?

I for one would find it most useful and educational.

Thanks

Gary

Edited by Gary Loughran
Link to post
Share on other sites
My momma always told me: "A hit dog hollers."

Ashton

Well Ashton, if you are not going to offer anything of substance ... you at least kept your last response short so not to waste forum space. Did you enjoy that Nix clip showing Jackie's white gloves as much as I liked pointing it out to you? Not studying the photographical record thoroughly is like trying to give a book review by only reading its cover. John F. Kennedy once said that a mistake isn't a mistake unless you refuse to correct it .... I hope you have learned something from all of this.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no fixed opinion on where the fatal headshot was administered from. I did have preconceptions and was always convinced of a knoll shot. However, on joining this forum I vowed to have a clean canvass on which I would draw my opinions as the formed.

Gary, from where the exact location the shot came from cannot be pinpointed to a 100% degree of certainty, but the direction the shot was traveling can be determined by way of science. (see below)

Below is an example of how a bullet could have hit the top of JFK's head. The bone plate is a fracture and the back pressure that releases the wide spray of cranial fluid dislodges the plate which is prevented from falling away because of a tether of scalp. (It should be noted that a tangental strike to the skull can cause the missile to change its path as it passes through the head, thus assuming that the bullet passed through the President's head in a straight line would more than likely be in error. In fact, Dr Clark stated that as a bullet sheds its energy, it shreads the brain and this is what was reported concerning the President's wound. If a bullet explodes upon impact, then the broken fragments would also shred the brain and take numerous paths through the head)

The Bone Plate coming off the top of the head and then hangs upside down over the President's right temporal area of the head. (see below)

So what happened and from where that would account for all the evidence to fit? Witnesses heard a loud shot come from the area of the Hat Man (west of the Hudson tree on the knoll) and simontaneously the President's head explodes. Immediately following is a smoke cloud thast comes drifting out through the trees. The smell of burnt gunpowder would soon be noted at the fence-line despite the wind blowing from the northwest, which means that it is impossible to blame the smoke and burnt gunpowder smell on a shot fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD a half a block away and to the east. The President's head is left with an avulsion in the right rear side of it in the occipital area. The avulsion is described by the Dallas doctors as the bone fractures being sprung open which allowed them to see down into the skull cavity. Both the Nix and Zapruder films are running too slow and from too far away to record crystal clear images through the President's hair so to see the fractured opening in the scalp. However, both films were capable of showing the bulging of the back of the President's head which is a key factor in support of the testimony given under oath by the Dallas doctors, as well as other witnesses in and around Parkland hospital who saw the wound to the back of the President's head. Modern day blood spatter science can be applied to explain the wide spray of cranial fluid that was released from President Kennedy's head. The phyics of what happens when a projectile puctures through an object can also be applied to the assassination films which in turn support the avulsion described by no less that 30 witnesses.

What have we got in rebuttal .... misstated facts, erred photographical interpretations, flawed 3D models and catchy responses such as ..

"I've had enough tea. Thanks for the party. He was hit by 15 shots from the front, all into the same hole in the head. Except, of course, for the throat shot.

His head did not go forward, but sideways in a mobius circle—like Linda Blair on crack. All 15 outdoor shooters (all on the grassy knoll) were invisible policemen who went up in the rapture. And God bless us everyone."

"So "what the hell" that statement means is that the FRONT of JFK'S head (that's the face side), above the right eye (which is on the FRONT of the head) EXPLODES (bursts open, bursts forth violently) OUTWARD (away from a central point, such as, e.g., the center of the skull) and in bursting OUTWARD does so TOWARD THE FRONT, meaning in the direction the limo is facing and traveling, in the direction that JFK facing. That OUTWARD BURSTING of the FRONT of the skull happens to take place just as JFK's head jerks FORWARD (toward the FRONT) violently at Zapruder 313."

"Snakefeathers. Hooey. Flobbergobber. Gombligernicampoikananity.

The shoulder does not go "rearward" when his head slams forward. At all. The only "rearwardness" in evidence comes in these giant zeppelin loads of 100% pure hootus that you manufacture around the clock, always based on "evidence" that isn't, and that can only, and inevitably does, result in page after page after page after page after page after page of just this kind of barking mad tail chasing that is your stock in trade."

This is the rebuttal in a nutshell. An ill-tempered forum member who hasn't the character to admit when he has been proven wrong. It's not enough to say 'the head went forward, so the shot must have came from the rear'. In fact, the head has been shown to have only gone forward in 1/18th of a second or one Zapruder film frame. It is virtually impossible for a human being to take such a powerful blow from behind and then right their posture in that short of time span, so another explanation has to be found. A shot from the front and traveling downward hitting the President on the front top portion of the head and jolting the right shoulder rearwards as the energy is absorbed down the spine can account for this instant motion. It also accounts for the large avulsion noted on the back of JFK's head and the rel;ease of the blood (cranial fluid) spatter that has been shown in both the Nix and Zapruder films.

Let each person first decide what truth is ...... and then determine the proper path to finding it.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bill & Ashton,

I've been reading the views here with interest as it is an area of the assassination which I'm having great difficulty reconciling myself. I have no fixed opinion on where the fatal headshot was administered from. I did have preconceptions and was always convinced of a knoll shot. However, on joining this forum I vowed to have a clean canvass on which I would draw my opinions as they formed.

Is there any chance you (plural) can wipe the slate clean and discuss your findings further on this thread?

Hi Gary,

For my part re Miller: not a prayer. I've just demonstrated conclusively in this thread that Miller created a complete fraud about JFK's head having an "abrupt left turn outward" by using Jacquie's hand. It's in the record right here in this topic. It's inarguable. All he's done since is throw more garbage by the ton into the thread to keep trying to sell his fraud. That's all he ever does. No rational discussion of any photographic or any other visual evidence is possible without Miller maliciously attacking and sabotaging it, turning on bold face, and spewing miles of his verbal sewage into the forum to assert endlessly that what isn't there is there, and that what is there isn't there. This is his sole activity, and apparently he has means to do pretty much nothing else.

Of course in doing so, he's the chief proponent of the Warren Commission's trump card: the phantom "avulsion" in the back of the head. In other words, Miller is the resident Warren Commission mouthpiece for the big, gaping hole in the back of the head—while pretending, of course, to be arguing against the Warren Commission findings. This is the double-speak always in the mouths of government shills.

"Avulsion" hell. It doesn't exist. It never existed. It never will exist. Look at the Zapruder images I posted above. Then look at the single piece of medical photographic evidence that has any relevance whatsoever:

kennedyautopsyrear.JPEG

There. What do your own eyes tell you? Go back and look at the Zapruder images I enhanced, and look at this photo of the back of Kennedy's head, and shut off the babbling, barking mad, fraudulent, resident forum Warren Commission shill long enough to look for yourself and compare the two, and you decide who's trying to sell you a pig in a poke.

Do you see anything even remotely resembling a giant void in the back of Kennedy's head? I don't. Do you see the exact large flap of skull on the right front of his head that's clearly visible in the Zapruder frames? I do.

Now let's examine Bill Miller's "bullet angle" that he's put in this thead above to "prove" that a bullet somehow came from the front, slapped Kennedy's head forward and down, then somehow supposedly blew out the back of the head. I set up a close approximation of his ridiculous bullet angle in the 3D model:

millersangleoffire.gif

Miller's already racing for the keyboard to whine his ass off for 20 paragraphs about how the 3D model is wrong, and I'm wrong, I don't have Mrs. Connally's teeth in the right place, I left out Jacquie's pill-box hat, and every other uttlerly irrelevant and nonsensical carping criticism he can dream up, and any dung he can manufacture to throw at it. But you're a rational and thoughtful person, so I'm sure you can understand that there's such a thing as acceptable tolerances in such a pursuit, and with that in mind, let's just slide around behind the limo and see where Miller's Magic Bullet came from. Would you care to join me? Well, here it is below, and as you can see, it either came from the vengeful hand of God, or it was a fly-by shooting by those wacky anti-Castro Cubans who must have hijacked a crop-duster to incite a military invasion of Cuba:

millersangleoffireanim.gif

There you go. At the overpass (underpass/railroad bridge/whatever) that trajectory is about 45 feet above it. So if it wasn't God, and it wasn't a fly-by, then we have to postulate that a four-story building shimmered into existence for an instant somewhere on the grassy knoll or the overpass.

That's the load of fertilizer Bill Miller is trying to sell you. You buyin'?

And I don't care how much he comes in here now and tries to adjust his angle of trajectory, there's no way in hell he'll ever get it even in the same zip code as anything that could support his infinite blather and frauds.

If you want to have a "discussion" with the Warren Commission's Smoking Caterpillar, let me step out of the way, and you have a grand time.

Let me also suggest that you pack a lunch.

Ashton

P.S. My opinion only: yes, there is a hole in the head. It's an entrance wound. That's why the ruler is there. And I will get back to the "Was the CIA involved" thread. I swear. I haven't forgotten.

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites

dear ashton. no doubt you are a knowledgable and worldly human, and i have the utmost respect for you.

i just wanted to say thank you. i enjoy your postings and understand and respect your opinions. your humor is a great welcome in my world.

thanks again and keep up the great work.

all the best to you and yours in this holiday season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gary Loughran

OK Ash, I understand your POV.

I do have some quick questions, (on the hoof at the minute, going out for first drink over Xmas with some friends now).

1. Why would the WC (or it's alleged supporters) argue for a frontal shot leading to an avulsion of JFKs head.

2. The Fox5 photo you state as being the only relevant one...why not the others?

3. What causes the violent backward motion of JFK...as compared to the comparatively short (length and duration (sounds like my sex life)) forward motion.

Will post more thoughtfully tomorrow.

Gary

Ps love the invade Cuba now banner. Are you a graphic artist??

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points.

1. Ashton is way off base in calling Bill a WC defender. What nonsense! The WC tried to avoid the whole back of the head/in front of the ear dichotomy in the eyewitness statements. They accepted testimony that the wound was on the back of the head AND in the front of the head and never tried to resolve the issue. The HSCA tried to resolve the issue by lying about it.

2. Ashton is right on in that there is NO evidence for a large exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head visible in the Zapruder film. This is why Livingston and Lifton joined the Fetzer camp and now believe the Z film is fake, if i understand them correctly. Miller is pretty much alone in asserting that the avulsion (or "volcano shape" as Groden calls it) apparent on the back of the head is anything but hair. IT WAS HAIR. A quick snap of the skull causes long hair to react a split second later. That Kennedy's haircut was long in this part is confirmed by the left lateral autopsy photo. A close look at Kennedy's arrival in Fort Worth allows one to see Kennedy's hair responding to the wind. It blows into a similar volcano shape. I've captured this image and include it in my greatly-expanded presentation, which will hopefully be made available in the near future.

3. The misperception that Kennedy's wound was on the back of his head was caused by his being viewed while he was lying exclusively on his back. This leads to rotation errors. Think about it. How could any of the witnesses claiming to have seen a wound on the back of Kennedy's head have seen it if he was lying on his back the whole time. Particularly in that he was lying in the TRENDELENBURG position. 24820058.jpg In the Trendelenburg position a wound on the top of Kennedy's head above his ear would be at the far back of the space occupied by his head. Is this a coincidence? No freakin' way. It's time for people to get over the whole "the witnesses said the wound was on the back of the head therefore the autopsy photos must be fake" red herring and look at the actual evidence. Guess what? It shows there were two shooters. FROM BEHIND. And quite possibly a third shooter or distraction somewhere to the west of the TSBD as well.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Ashton is way off base in calling Bill a WC defender. What nonsense! The WC tried to avoid the whole back of the head/in front of the ear dichotomy in the eyewitness statements. They accepted testimony that the wound was on the back of the head AND in the front of the head and never tried to resolve the issue. The HSCA tried to resolve the issue by lying about it.
Ashton says a lot of things that aren't accurate, but accuracy is not something he strives for anyway.
2. Ashton is right on in that there is NO evidence for a large exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head visible in the Zapruder film. This is why Livingston and Lifton joined the Fetzer camp and now believe the Z film is fake, if i understand them correctly. Miller is pretty much alone in asserting that the avulsion (or "volcano shape" as Groden calls it) apparent on the back of the head is anything but hair. IT WAS HAIR. A quick snap of the skull causes long hair to react a split second later. That Kennedy's haircut was long in this part is confirmed by the left lateral autopsy photo. A close look at Kennedy's arrival in Fort Worth allows one to see Kennedy's hair responding to the wind. It blows into a similar volcano shape. I've captured this image and include it in my greatly-expanded presentation, which will hopefully be made available in the near future.

Pat, you are another one who chooses not to fit all the pieces together. For you to take the position that the Dallas doctors, among the 30 witnesses who said the same, didn't see nothing but hair and mistook that for avulsed bones on the back of the President's head is ridiculous.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...