|
Dotting the Eye
|
25-03-2013, 11:11 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:This is PRECISELY the sort of dialog that my "hypothesis" threads are intended to engender.Are you being sarcastic? Seriously there are times when I just do not know. Dawn Obviously a rhetorical question now, but I still needed to ask... 
25-03-2013, 11:11 PM
Gordon Gray Wrote:I think a shot from the rear with a FMJ bullet would not necessarily leave a massive exit wound in the President's face. It could very well leave such a hole at the location at the hairline above the right eye. I am not denying a shot from the front. I am fairly sure there was one involving a frangible bullet, and this is what explains the trail of particles. But the forward motion of the Presisdent's head Z312-313, the autopsy doctors and the observations of the people who saw the "other film", gives a strong indication for a shot from the rear. If you don't trust the XRays(and I don't either) what evidence do you have that there was not an occipital wound as the autopsy doctors described? Also the location of other shooters has never been ruled out. There could have been gunmen any where behind the pergola which could have resulted in a flatter trajectory and an angle more in keeping with such an exit hole. The shot need not have come from the Dal Tex. There is simply no evidence - other than the BS generated at Bethesda - to suggest a shot from the rear to JFK's head... there is just as much an explanation that an object will move toward the direction of a shot, only slightly, before being overtaken by the force of the shot. I lined up the frames and drew a line down his right shoulder... look at the back of the head where the line touches... his shoulders don't move forward, his head does not move forward... they move backward and continue moving backward... to attribute a 1/18th of a second movement of a very slight distance when the images are this bad - and THAT remains the only supporting evidence of a rear shot geiven all the other evidence... seems like quite a stretch as a conclusion... One shot from the front, thru that section of his head: would leave a bullet hole in the front would leave a larger exiting wound in the back may travel in a straight line or not would explain the blowing out of the right side of his head would be consistent with what everyone at Parkland saw would explain the hinged opening at the front right and large hole observed at the back right and allow for that hinge to be closed, or simply be part of the "gaping hole" in JFK's head as seen by all Parkland observers & would explain the particle trail seen in the xrays as it is overlaid on JFK's head I have no problem with you trying to squeeze a square peg onto a round hole... but the simple explanation which results in what was seen is a single exploding round hitting him right where that "hole" is seen in F6/7 and what appears to have been cut away entirely or obscured as best as possible in other images of that area. Does it not seem almost amazing that the particle trail in JFK's head and the frontal entry point line up ? and there is no entry hole at the back of JFK's head where the particles begin? On a low trajectory shot from Dal Tex... his face gets blown off. OR there is a small neat hole in back and another small hole at the front and no particle trail since we have a hi speed FMJ bullet at work. ... n either can be supported by the evidence. [ATTACH=CONFIG]4488[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
25-03-2013, 11:47 PM
I don't completely discount the Bethesda autopsy observations, nor do I discount the observations of those who observed the "other film", and the slight forward head movement. Also a shot from the Dal Tex striking where the Bethesda doctors described it, and exiting at the point where the dot/circle/ whatever, is seen is possible IMO. A FMJ bullet would not necessarily leave a particle trail.
26-03-2013, 12:37 AM
Gordon Gray Wrote:I don't completely discount the Bethesda autopsy observations, nor do I discount the observations of those who observed the "other film", and the slight forward head movement. Also a shot from the Dal Tex striking where the Bethesda doctors described it, and exiting at the point where the dot/circle/ whatever, is seen is possible IMO. A FMJ bullet would not necessarily leave a particle trail. So Gordon... There is no entry wound to the rear of the particle trail... A FMJ would not leave a particle trail There IS a particle trail of many metalic fragments on the right side of the skull angling front right front to middle rear There WAS a large hole in the right rear of JFK's skull NOT shown on the xrays or the official photos The front of JFK's face and the injuries seen at Parkland do NOT correspond to the skull xrays in any way... and Mantik tells us how/why. There is compelling testimony that surgical procedures were performed on JFK PRIOR to these photos/xrays being taken which also suggest the BEST EVIDENCE was altered prior to creating the official documentation of the autopsy There is compelling evidence that at least one shot was fired AND HIT from the front of JFK. No one at Parkland saw the "V" cutout above his right eye... I've put the death stare version of that "V" in with Groden... was Groden's tampered with? Is there a flap of skin or hair over the spot where that hole would be? I also added the F6/7 images of this Black Dot.... to me, F7, on the right, is even more indicative of a hole at that spot.... So while I disagree with your "shot from behind" scenario possibility as there is little to support such a shot... saying definitively that these two autopsy photos actually show the point of impact is also very difficult.... Add now Horne's viewing of the photos ( and whether he tells us the F photos are the same as those ones he saw) yet does tell us they look genuine to him leads me to conclude that indeed, F6 and F7 clearly show a point of entry for a shot from the front... Maybe in that context you can explain this reference to a bullet still lodged behind JFK's ear... as of 9:18pm DALLAS time... and when that bullet is removed.... my guess? Humes removes it between 6:30 and 7:15 in the morgue at Bethesda while an empty casket is being driven around and around.... DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
26-03-2013, 02:08 AM
Jim DiEugenio, on 29 January 2012 - 10:22 AM, Education Forum , said: "As per the blown our right side, I think most of us believe there were two shots to the head: one through the right temple and one from behind. This had to result in extensive brain damage." If Jim is correct in his observation that most believe two shots struck the presidents head, why do you suppose that is? As for the dot. If you think it is a point of entry than we are back to the fact that it must have originated the area of the South Knoll. You cant' have it both ways. You can't have a shot from the front striking him in the frontal bone, and striking him in the temple. They are not the same area. Or is this what you are suggesting, that two bullets struck him from the front, one above the right eye in the area of the dot, and one in the temple just in front of the right ear? As to the pre autopsy alterations, there may be plenty of conjecture about this, but I have not seen any more "compelling evidence" for it, than I have for the rear entry wound in the occipital area. In fact I find the evidence for that more "compelling". It seems to me that if the autopsy doctors were lying about it, or just making stuff up to please their masters, they wouldn't have been so adamant about it's location. They would have gone along with the change in location so as to better fit the single shooter from behind theory, rather than resisting.
26-03-2013, 05:34 PM
Gordon Gray Wrote:Jim DiEugenio, on 29 January 2012 - 10:22 AM, Education Forum , said: "As per the blown our right side, I think most of us believe there were two shots to the head: one through the right temple and one from behind. This had to result in extensive brain damage." If Jim is correct in his observation that most believe two shots struck the presidents head, why do you suppose that is? As for the dot. If you think it is a point of entry than we are back to the fact that it must have originated the area of the South Knoll. You cant' have it both ways. You can't have a shot from the front striking him in the frontal bone, and striking him in the temple. They are not the same area. Or is this what you are suggesting, that two bullets struck him from the front, one above the right eye in the area of the dot, and one in the temple just in front of the right ear? As to the pre autopsy alterations, there may be plenty of conjecture about this, but I have not seen any more "compelling evidence" for it, than I have for the rear entry wound in the occipital area. In fact I find the evidence for that more "compelling". It seems to me that if the autopsy doctors were lying about it, or just making stuff up to please their masters, they wouldn't have been so adamant about it's location. They would have gone along with the change in location so as to better fit the single shooter from behind theory, rather than resisting. Thanks Gordon... yet I'd be interested if Jim still feels the same over a year later.... I think the shot where the Dot is... IS the only frontal shot that hits his head... the "temple" is simply a frame of reference... look where Kilduff is pointing... Above the eye, NOT the temple which is about 2 inches to the anatomical right of his finger.... NOT that this is evidence of shot location... just that a shot to the DOT would blow out the side/back of his head just as easily as a temple shot... Yet Gordon... I can have and have had this conversation with Jim... what do YOU think based on the evidence presented here? A 2nd shot to the back of the head requires much more damage than seen at Parkland... and to base the appearance of his injuries on the Bethesda photos, drawings and testimony is buying into the conspiracy.... IF we accept that something of a drastic nature was done to JFK's head between Parkland and Bethesda... we will never know the original extent of the injuries OTHER than what the Parkland/Dallas witnesses tell us. IF the "F" photos represent what did happen in Dallas... Every one of the Dallas and Parkland witnesses MUST be wrong. The civilians and non-governmental medical personnel are WRONG and the tightly controlled MILITARY AUTOPSY concluded the exact opposite of what they all saw, touched and experienced... If you are comfortable with that conclusion... so be it. All I ask is that you look at Boswell's drawing, Boswell's illustration directly on the skull of how much bone and head and brain was gone... and those of the Parkland witnesses... A 2-3 inch hole becomes a 19cmx10cm hole... the entire TOP of his head is gone.. There are fractures thru the BOTTOM of the skull and Brain... I also suggest that you contact someone who can explain the medical terms in the 3rd version of the autopsy that is now official... as the first one was burned and the second one, which Rankin refers to here give us a different result and yet does not appear in the autopsy report available to us today... You'll find many, many "first said"'s that point to conspiracy and cover-up simply dismissed without question... literally without a question asked... as in, "If that wasn't Oswald using Oswald's name, who was it?" Mr. Rankin: Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
27-03-2013, 03:32 AM
You don't address any of the points I am making. Let me try to be clear one more time before I give up. We are discussing the black dot. Whether it is an entrance or exit wound. If it's an entrance wound then given the direction the President's head is facing at Z312, it would have had to have come from the area of the South Knoll. The only evidence I can think of for a shot from that direction is Plumlee, and Fetzer's hole in the windshield. I think both are suspect. It could be an exit wound. The autopsists found a 17 cm x 10 cm wound extending from the temperal bone through the parietal well down into the occipital bone. The Dallas doctors did not see a wound this large because while the scalp had been lacerated it covered most of the forward edges of the wound in the skull. When the Bethesda doctors reflected the scalp they found that skull fragments had adhered to the underside of the scalp and the wound in the underlying bone was much larger. At the bottom edge of the wound in the occiput they found a notch with beveling that was in keeping with an entrance. They found beveling on a separated fragment of occiput that they fit into the wound to form what they believed was the wound of entrance. They also found beveling on another fragment from the front of the head with the beveling indicating an exit. This is by no means conclusive or even compelling, but it is suggestive of a rear entrance. And let me try to be very clear here, a rear entrance wound in no way precludes a front entry as well. In addition they found bullet fragments in the area behind the orbital bone, very near the location of the dot. Combine this with the forward head movement in Z312-313 and the observations of the people who saw the "other film" and observed a clear distinction between a forward movement followed by a rearward movement, and I think you have evidence of two shots, and more evidence for a rear entry with an exit at the point of the dot, than you do for an entry at that point. In addition both Cyril Wecht and David Mantik believe there were both shot's from the rear and the front.( Wecht believes a shot entered at the rear and exited the right front leaving a defect. Another shot entered at this defect and blew out the back of the head.) Since they certainly don't accept the higher rear location of the HSCA, they must accept the lower location of the autopsy doctors. The autopsists located the rear entrance at a point to the right of the mid line and somewhat above the occipital protuberance. Unfortunately we don't say how far above. But certainly not the 10cm that the HSCA said it was. However, a shot from the second or third floor of the Dal Tex building, striking at this location, could exit from the area of the dot in JFK frontal bone. Could. Not saying that it did, just that it is plausible.
27-03-2013, 07:44 PM
Gordon...
Curious... after exiting the front right..hru this little hole... where did the complete FMJ bullet go? JC? Found yet disappeard from the limo? any thoughts? IMO, There is simply nothing of value to be found in the evidence from Bethesda other than the glaring support for alteration of the wounds... and the wholesale cover-up of the "BEST EVIDENCE" Coming to a MEDICAL conclusion based on the xrays/photos from Bethesda is a fool's errand, imo. (the 3rd and final autopsy states that JFK's skeleton has no Gross abnormalities... althought he had pins and screws and crushed vertibrae back there... and EVERYONE knew it. Yet no questions were ever asked.. Here is an xray of JFK showing the GROSS SKELETAL ABNORMALITIES... they just miss it? Assumptions about the wounds are best determined BEFORE the body leave Parkland.... does a single person from Dallas describe a hole high in the right forehead? [ATTACH=CONFIG]4505[/ATTACH] Again... I completely respect you POV here. what you speculate about with regards to Dal-Tex is physcially possible... it just does not line up with the rest of the evidence. Maybe though you can explain how a 3 inch hole becomes the entire top of his head.. how a 1.5inch trach incision becomes a 3-4 inch ragged wound, where the bullet the FBI refers to as being lodged behind JFK's ear went... and why Kellerman leaves the ambulance, Greer, the casket, Jackie and Bobby and then tells us DIRECTLY that he and the FBI brought the casker in at 7:17... when the MDW doesn't do so until 8pm? Some things to consider: the LEFT TEMPLE wound seen by doctors at Parkland and the priest who gave last rites. Altgens statement suggesting that the left side of the head was injured as well... coupled with his insistence that JFK was hit while no more than 15 feet from him.... Both of these first hand witness accounts do not match with the "official" evidence... and this is only the tip of the iceberg... Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from Bottom line Gordon... the autopsists dod not do the work necessary to determine the path of a bullet thru the brain or the skull... they destroyed the BEST EVIDENCE only to create it as they needed... I will post this one more time... does a hole above the right eye in the scalp and skull make sense to YOU if there is no skull there in the first place? Where is the famous FLAP which is shown right here above and to the front of the ear.... (and please remember that the man who supposedly took this xray explains who the film is not the same as he used, there are no ID tags or frames of reference... [ATTACH=CONFIG]4503[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]4504[/ATTACH] Commander HUMES - The president's body was received at 25 minutes before 8, and the autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that evening. Except we all know the MDW delivered the Casket to the morgue AT 8pm and the autopsy began at 8:15.... who were they taking images of and looking at in those 25-40 minutes ??
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
27-03-2013, 09:04 PM
At Parkland the doctors looked into his eyes for pupil reactions
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eOnly=true "Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted" "President's pupils widely dialated and fixed to light" "There was a large wound in the right occipito-pariatal region" according to the frontal xray... there is no bone there for a hole to be seen...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
27-03-2013, 10:35 PM
I explained hpw the wound appeared smaller to the Parkland Doctors and how the actual wound in the Skull(not the scalp) was measured by the Bethesda doctors to be larger. But perhaps you should read Gary Aguilar he does a much better job with the medical evidence. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jf...tWrong.htm Like him I don't completely discount the autopsy evidence. The problem with this case is that almost all of the evidence gathered is so tainted it could be dismissed. One has to use their best judgement is choosing what to believe to credible. I am not sold on the best evidence theory, though I don't rule it out. BTW I have been at this now for 40 years so don't assume I haven't read a lot of the material you cite. I may not be able to keep it all in my head at one time. I doubt anyone can. And I also know how to use Google.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
