EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
No, no, no. The bright side is that we have a potentially limitless source of Stundie nominations.
Merged bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo/ You might be...
- Thread starter roundhead
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jfk assassination
CurtC
Illuminator
The shot entered his right thoracic vertebrae? Alert the medical examiner! When he stops laughing at you...
Hey 7forever, it's kind of entertaining watching you urinate all over yourself here, but at some point you should settle down for a real discussion. Pick a point that you think supports your view, and let's hash it out in detail. After that's been done thoroughly, we can move on to another point. It doesn't do you any good to scatter-shot your argument like you're doing.
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
But that's a tactic one uses when they don't have a leg to stand on. Why would he want to do that?
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
No wonder. All that fail has to wear him out.
Yes he is and yes he was. He knew the bullet that hit Kennedy came from the front and that is the main reason he knew he was a hit by a seperate bullet. HE WAS IN THE CROSSIFIRE OF BULLETS FLYING. It's not even debatable that Connally knew what happened. That combined with outright laughing at the sbt all by itself, you have the only other person shot saying it's false. Kennedy was struck from the front at 225 and Connally from the back between 234-238 and that is what any jury would believe.
You posted an illedgible video of drunk kids shooting at pumkins or whatever. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what would happen with a human skull attached to a body. THOSE VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING and you are the one who provided an ignorant argument based solely on those videos.
Last edited:
I know of only a few videos on the web showing people shooting themselves or being shot. Here is the suicide Bjork's stalker in 96. This video is not that graphic because he falls out of the camera's view but beware, I guess. Advance the video to 3 minutes and shortly after he shoots himself through the mouth his HEAD GOES BACKWARD...no surprise there. There will never be any evidence put forth that would show a person's head being launched in the same direction from which the bullet came.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/183253/
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/183253/
Last edited:
Clint Hill sees the rear exit wound after the fatal shot
Mr. HILL - This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car. Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.
Mr. HILL - This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car. Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.
The path of the bullet by Greer and Crenshaw
Mr. Specter.
Did you just mention, Mr. Greer, a hole in the President's head in addition to the large area of the skull which was shot away?
Mr. Greer.
No. I had just seen that, you know, the head was damaged in all this part of it but I believe looking at the X-rays, I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye. Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Greer.
I don't know which eye, I may be wrong. But they showed us the trace of it coming through but there were very little small specks on the X-rays that these professionals knew what course that the bullet had taken, the lead.
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President's head during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.
Greer describes almost exactly what Crenshaw describes in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14&feature=PlayList&p=CA3C4F4B4B12C20C&index=22
Mr. Specter.
Did you just mention, Mr. Greer, a hole in the President's head in addition to the large area of the skull which was shot away?
Mr. Greer.
No. I had just seen that, you know, the head was damaged in all this part of it but I believe looking at the X-rays, I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye. Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Greer.
I don't know which eye, I may be wrong. But they showed us the trace of it coming through but there were very little small specks on the X-rays that these professionals knew what course that the bullet had taken, the lead.
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President's head during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.
Greer describes almost exactly what Crenshaw describes in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14&feature=PlayList&p=CA3C4F4B4B12C20C&index=22
The truth revealed at Parkland
That JFK's head wound was on the right side of his head is universally accepted. With a single exception, all witnesses placed JFK's major skull defect on the right side, and given the frequency of witness error, this suggests good witness reliability in this case. The most peculiar aspect of JFK's wounds is that of the 46 witnesses I whose opinions I have examined between Parkland and Bethesda, 45 of whom correctly claimed that the skull defect was on the right side, 44 were apparently wrong by the "best" evidence to claim that the wound was in the right-rear, rather than the right-front. The "authenticated" photographs, the originals of which were twice examined by author Aguilar at the National Archives, show no rear defect at all, only an anterior-lateral defect, and so, if valid, the images prove that not a single witness accurately described JFK's fatal wound, and that even the autopsy report fails to accurately describe the skull defect visible in the images!
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
The rear exit on Kennedy's head is universally accepted with the exception of lone nut hold outs who refuse accept facts that were proven long ago.
2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)
That JFK's head wound was on the right side of his head is universally accepted. With a single exception, all witnesses placed JFK's major skull defect on the right side, and given the frequency of witness error, this suggests good witness reliability in this case. The most peculiar aspect of JFK's wounds is that of the 46 witnesses I whose opinions I have examined between Parkland and Bethesda, 45 of whom correctly claimed that the skull defect was on the right side, 44 were apparently wrong by the "best" evidence to claim that the wound was in the right-rear, rather than the right-front. The "authenticated" photographs, the originals of which were twice examined by author Aguilar at the National Archives, show no rear defect at all, only an anterior-lateral defect, and so, if valid, the images prove that not a single witness accurately described JFK's fatal wound, and that even the autopsy report fails to accurately describe the skull defect visible in the images!
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
The rear exit on Kennedy's head is universally accepted with the exception of lone nut hold outs who refuse accept facts that were proven long ago.
2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Hey, look at the bright side. The guy took a break. Maybe he's collecting his thoughts and becoming rational about things.
He's back.
I think the 7 year-old is on a real jag. Dammit, he's going to convince you stick-in-the-mud skeptics that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and if that doesn't work he's going to hold his breath until he turns blue and then you'll be sorry!
Last edited:
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
While I can't seem to easily find the caliber/type of bullet Ricardo Lopez used, comparing the reaction of a handgun shot at point blank range to a rifle shot from a great distance is apples and oranges for a crapload of reasons.
CurtC
Illuminator
7forever, your hypothesis seems to be that Kennedy was struck from the front at Z225, and the shot went through the windshield. Connally was shot from behind shortly thereafter, and then Kennedy's head shot came from the front at Z313.
Is that correct?
As I see it, here's the evidence against your scenario.
* There was not a hole in the windshield, just a crack, with lead residue on the inside surface of the glass.
* There was only one crack. Your scenario requires two shots from the front that both hit Kennedy. But the windshield would be in the way for any shooters from the front - how did the bullets get to him? In order for a front shot to pass over the windshield and hit Kennedy, the shooter would have to be well above the railroad overpass, which was being guarded by police (there were no shooters there).
* The Zapruder frame 313 clearly shows the top right of Kennedy's head being blown off, which conflicts with the idea of a front shooter. Comparison with frame 312 also shows significant movement forward at the time of the hit, which was followed by a slower reaction back and to the left.
* You think the shot that hit Kennedy from the front at Z225 caused the crack in the windshield, but in the Altgens photo 1-6, which happens at about Z255, the windshield has not yet been cracked.
So here we have strong reasons to think your hypothesis is wrong, and the only things you offer in favor of it are your interpretations of what Connally was thinking when, and your apparent misinterpretation of the location of Kennedy's skull hole.
How do you address these discrepancies?
Is that correct?
As I see it, here's the evidence against your scenario.
* There was not a hole in the windshield, just a crack, with lead residue on the inside surface of the glass.
* There was only one crack. Your scenario requires two shots from the front that both hit Kennedy. But the windshield would be in the way for any shooters from the front - how did the bullets get to him? In order for a front shot to pass over the windshield and hit Kennedy, the shooter would have to be well above the railroad overpass, which was being guarded by police (there were no shooters there).
* The Zapruder frame 313 clearly shows the top right of Kennedy's head being blown off, which conflicts with the idea of a front shooter. Comparison with frame 312 also shows significant movement forward at the time of the hit, which was followed by a slower reaction back and to the left.
* You think the shot that hit Kennedy from the front at Z225 caused the crack in the windshield, but in the Altgens photo 1-6, which happens at about Z255, the windshield has not yet been cracked.
So here we have strong reasons to think your hypothesis is wrong, and the only things you offer in favor of it are your interpretations of what Connally was thinking when, and your apparent misinterpretation of the location of Kennedy's skull hole.
How do you address these discrepancies?
Those pesky early reports...
5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed", p. 312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."
5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed", p. 312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."
Rogue1stclass
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 844
You are comparing a point blank pistol shot with a medium range rifle shot (with a punch). You can't do that.
At exceedingly close range, like in the mouth, there are more forces acting on the target than just the impact of the bullet, namely the propelling gasses venting from the muzzle and cylinder gap. With a .357 magnum, these gasses are likely powerful enough to move a target's head back without even factoring in the impact of the bullet. Plus, there is the fact that a pistol, even a .357 Magnum, is significantly less powerful than a centerfire rifle. A 6.5mm Carcano produces 2 1/2 times the energy of a .357 magnum across a smaller radius (.357" is roughly 9 milimeters). When you add in bullet designs, copper jacket vs soft lead, this means that the rifle is going to deposit less of its energy in the target, leading to something called overpenetration. However, the energy it does lose has to go somewhere, which is into the soft tissues, distorting them into something called the temporary wound cavity. Normally, this channel simply expands and then retracts with no real harm done (the real damage comes from the permanent wound cavity, which is the hole the bullet rips through tissue), however, in the case of a head wound, the expansion is limited by the skull. This builds up hyrdostatic pressure. When overpenetration occurs, most of this pressure is released through the exit wound, which will usually be larger because of the shockwave around the bullet pushing tissue in front of it. This results in a spray of gore which is now the only energy acting on the target, because the bullet has already run its course.
Don't rely on common sense when it comes to guns and terminal ballistics, because, in general, there isn't any. Most of what people think they know about these things comes from TV, movies, and video games, and it is almost always wrong.
After it happened by Kilduff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V73-unR1Rq4
"A simple matter of a bullet right to the head"
Greer pointed to his right eye...LOL
they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye. Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President's head during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V73-unR1Rq4
"A simple matter of a bullet right to the head"
Greer pointed to his right eye...LOL
they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye. Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President's head during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.
Davidlpf
Muse
This youtube movie shows what really happen on the grassy knoll.
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
I'm going to attempt one more time to lead a horse to water.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You also might want to read actual books rather than investi-googling.
Case Closed or Reclaiming History are both very good.
Since all I'm seeing are arguments from incredulity and ignorance rather than an actual desire to learn what happened I'm not going to bother to try to correct any mistakes myself, I'm just going to go ahead and post some links that will lead you to the answers you are looking for. If you choose to ignore them or claim what they say is false because they don't want to hear what they have to say then we are done here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You also might want to read actual books rather than investi-googling.
Case Closed or Reclaiming History are both very good.
Since all I'm seeing are arguments from incredulity and ignorance rather than an actual desire to learn what happened I'm not going to bother to try to correct any mistakes myself, I'm just going to go ahead and post some links that will lead you to the answers you are looking for. If you choose to ignore them or claim what they say is false because they don't want to hear what they have to say then we are done here.
oh noes! he's back! everybody panic!
OK, I realize that you don't want to read any skeptical information about JFK. Got it.
Please do educate yourself on logical fallacies. This comes in handy no matter what the topic. Give it a try!
"illedgible (sic) video of drunk kids shooting at pumkins (sic) or whatever" = strawmanWP.
I posted videos of melons, a live goat and a human skull. No drunk kids, no pumpkins.
Not to mention, you are analysing a 50-year old, grainy video and making ballistic conclusions (with no sound, btw), and criticizing other grainy videos? Really? This is called "irony." Another word for you to look up.
The fact that you can't believe how President Kennedy's head would move from a long-range rifle shot means nothing. It has been explained to you several times and you ignore it. You are "arguing from ignorance" or "arguing from incredulity." The fact that you cannot believe something does not make it true. The fact that you don't know anything about ballistics, physics, or how the human body behaves doesn't make you right.
ETA - "Reclaiming History" is an excellent recommendation, but really the macadams website should be enough.
OK, I realize that you don't want to read any skeptical information about JFK. Got it.
Please do educate yourself on logical fallacies. This comes in handy no matter what the topic. Give it a try!
"illedgible (sic) video of drunk kids shooting at pumkins (sic) or whatever" = strawmanWP.
I posted videos of melons, a live goat and a human skull. No drunk kids, no pumpkins.
Not to mention, you are analysing a 50-year old, grainy video and making ballistic conclusions (with no sound, btw), and criticizing other grainy videos? Really? This is called "irony." Another word for you to look up.
The fact that you can't believe how President Kennedy's head would move from a long-range rifle shot means nothing. It has been explained to you several times and you ignore it. You are "arguing from ignorance" or "arguing from incredulity." The fact that you cannot believe something does not make it true. The fact that you don't know anything about ballistics, physics, or how the human body behaves doesn't make you right.
ETA - "Reclaiming History" is an excellent recommendation, but really the macadams website should be enough.
Last edited:
I don't believe the government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM I believe the witnesses like this lady combined with the research of Doug Weldon. Plus the altgens photo shows a possible hole right of the mirror. Connally's reaction at 225 and the wound being described as a wound of entry by Parkland docs and you have corroboration. The location of the hole would suggest a shooter south and west of the limo and it's direction puts it in line with passing Connally's head before it strikes Kennedy. What Connally does at 225 is ignored by everyone even Connally himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM I believe the witnesses like this lady combined with the research of Doug Weldon. Plus the altgens photo shows a possible hole right of the mirror. Connally's reaction at 225 and the wound being described as a wound of entry by Parkland docs and you have corroboration. The location of the hole would suggest a shooter south and west of the limo and it's direction puts it in line with passing Connally's head before it strikes Kennedy. What Connally does at 225 is ignored by everyone even Connally himself.
Last edited: