Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogYou have attributed the gore we see being ejected forward and upward from
JFK's head at Z313 as tail splash. Isn't tail splash emitted from the
entrance wound which you have placed in the "forehead/temple", a wound
your various witnesses have described as about 5mm or 1/4 inch. Do you
really believe all that gore could be coming from a wound so small? Also
doesn't tail splash emit back toward the shooter? Why is all that gore
moving forward and upward? Just curious.
The OBVIOUS frontal wound in the forehead/temple area says there was a
shooter from the front. If gore, etc. went forward, that would fit the
definition of 'tail splash' as per DiMaio. However, since the Z-film was
altered, particularly at the frame 312 and after, the information you get
from that area of the film can't be relied upon.
"All that gore" is really a mist, which is not very substantial.
So you're sticking with the tail splash argument. You're really going to
tell us all that brain and blood we see in Z313 "is not very substantial".
"us all"? You've elected yourself to the position without any input
from anyone else? Must be an ego thing.
When you post something on a public forum such as this, you are speaking
to everyone who reads it. Nobody needs to appoint me anything. What you
post is there for all to see.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogDo you think anybody is buying this nonsense? Also, if you believe the
blowout was in the back of the head, why don't we see a similar discharge
of tissue out the back of his head?
Gotcha again! There was such a blast of material from the BOH. A
fellow named Bobby Hargis (motorcycle cop) was pacing the limo at the rear
and left side. He got covered with the blood brains and other fluids and
material from the head of JFK. Se his testimony to be sure.
He got covered with blood because he drove through all that gore that went
forward. I've pointed this out before but if you drive through a pothole
filled with rain water, it will splash your windshield. While it appears
it is going backward into the windshield, in reality the splash is going
forward and upward and the car is simply moving forward faster than the
splash. That is what happened to Hargis.
WRONG! It has been pointed out to you a number of times before that
the limo was slowed almost to a stop when the final kill shot struck.
There was no wind from the passage of the limo at that time. And you
might want to rethink you're faithful belief in the WCR.
Almost a stop is not a stop. I once got a ticket for making almost a stop
at a stop sign. The limo and the motorcycles were moving forward the whole
time.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogThere might have been a miniscule amount of tail splash out the back of
JFK's head but not enough to be visible in the Z-film. All the visible
gore is moving forward and upward and it is not being emitted from the
front of his head but from the upper middle portion where the blow out
was.
When someone is shot from the front, as you've been informed, 'tail
splash' happens in a forward direction.
Tell us where that shooter could have been.
Post by mainframetechThe blast from internal pressure
would make the BOH blow out. I wouldn't call that 'mist' in the Z-film
"gore", just mist. The real stuff went backward, but that couldn't allow
that to be seen in the Z-film.
Oh, it was "they" again. Any explanation for why the visible gore in Z313
is emanating from the upper middle of JFK's head and not the front or
back?
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogSince you are fond of citing DiMaio to support your silly arguments, did
you catch DiMaio's observations which I posted in another thread.
WRONG again! When will you learn? I do not quote DiMaio to support
my arguments, I simply quote from his book "Gunshot Wounds" which is a
textbook in that business to back up what happened in certain cases.
IOW, you don't care what DiMaio thinks. You'd rather present your
uninformed opinions about his work. Once more you pretend to know better
than one of the leading experts in the field of forensic medicine and
wound ballistics.
WRONG! Using "IOW" on me won't cut it. You haven't a clue what I
think or will say. I care what DiMaio thinks about the case, but that
doesn't mean I slavishly believe anything he says.
Apparently, you believe very little of what he says and what you do
believe you completely misinterpret.
Post by mainframetechI happen to know that
the panels made the same mistake DiMaio made in missing the bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area.
Oh, they ALL made a mistake but luckily we have you to point out their
errors. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdoghttp://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
He explains the reasons we know the head shot came from behind. There's no
way I could explain it as well as he has so I'll just let you read it for
yourself.
Failed again. Ah well. Strange that you're quoting Ken Rahn, one of
the people you've insulted as a CT 'kook'.
I'll bet you a dollar and give you 100 to 1 odds that you can't find a
post by me in which I labeled Ken Rahn a kook. Unless you want to accuse
Rahn of manufacturing the quote from DiMaio, the words are DiMaio's.
To my knowledge I've never seen you call Rahn anything with his name
in the same sentence.
Then why did you accuse me of insulting Ken Rahn as a CT kook.
Post by mainframetechBut I've seen you use the term 'kook' for websites
he has posted to because he was the writer for some of those that I have
used, and you have then called 'kook' websites. Pay up.
I've never referred to Rahn as a kook nor have I disparaged anything he
has written. Why would I refer to Rahn as a kook since he is a LN. Rahn
has described his The Academic JFK Assassination Website as follows:
" This site shows that the proper investigative techniques lead inevitably
to the strong conclusions that JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone
gunman firing from the Texas School Book Depository, that he was almost
certainly acting alone, and that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey
Oswald."
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechBut the mistake there is the
same as the mistake made by the many panels examining the evidence. They
had no access to the body, no access to the enlisted men at the autopsy,
and did not see the small bullet wound in the forehead/temple area. Easy
to make mistakes if that happens.
So you think the top forensic medical professionals in the country are
incapable of analyzing the medical evidence because they only saw the high
quality photos and x-rays from the autopsy but you, despite having not
seen the body either, having seen only a few internet copies of a handful
of photos and x-rays, and with absolutely no medical training whatsoever
were able to figure out what they couldn't. I don't suppose you have any
idea how preposterous that is.
WRONG again! I've had some medical training...mostly first aid.
So you know how to put on a Band-Aid. I suppose you think that qualifies
you in the field of forensic medicine.
Post by mainframetechAnd
since the panels had no access to any of the things they needed to see to
make proper decisions, and since the bullet hole in the forehead was hard
to see without ENLARGING the photo,
Oh, so now your bullet hole is hard to see.
Post by mainframetechthey had read the AR and it seemed to
them the case was solved by the pathologists and there was nothing for
them to do. A simple mistake promoted by the pathologists by them lying
in the AR.
I don't know why but I find it hysterically funny every time you make this
arguments.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogAlso you have long maintained that the bruised pleura is evidence a bullet
struck the pleura but did not pass through it. DiMaio also explains why
that argument doesn't hold water.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity
missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the
backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target,
creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30
times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the
cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to
rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the
expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe
damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This
pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are
a considerable distance from the path of the bullet."
So as DiMaio explains, the pleura could be bruised by a bullet that was "a
considerable distance from the path of the bullet". So one more of your
claims bites the dust.
Amazing how foolish people can get! The bullet that struck the upper
back of JFK did not have the speed to do the damage spoken of by DiMaio.
Because you say so even though you've never been able to present a
plausible explanation how a bullet traveling so slow could maintain its
trajectory well enough to reach the target.
The explanation as given to you,
I did say a PLAUSIBLE explanation. That has never been given by you.
Post by mainframetechbut it's been so long ago that (as
usual) you've forgotten it. The 'short shot' was traveling too slowly to
penetrate more than an inch into the back of JFK.
If it was traveling that slow it would never have held its trajectory to
the target. It would have fallen well short. Hence the term "short
shot".
Post by mainframetechThat was proved by the bruises on pleura and lung,
I've quoted DiMaio explaining that the pressure cavity created by a
transiting bullet is many times as wide as the bullet itself and it can
cause tissue damage some distance from the actual bullet tract. As is your
norm when presented inconvenient evidence, you choose to ignore it.
Post by mainframetechwhich would have been straight through tears
or punctures if the bullet was traveling at normal speeds. Bullets don't
maneuver around organs in the body, they punch through them.
The can also damage organs they pass close to as explained by DiMaio.
Post by mainframetechAs to reasons that the bullet was traveling slowly, either there was
some mechanical or chemical problem with he powder or the shell the bullet
came from, or the bullet encountered something along its way and was
slowed before striking JFK.
If any of that had happened, the gravity would have prevented such a
bullet from reaching the target. It's simple physics. Gravity would start
to draw the bullet back toward earth the instant it left the muzzle. The
longer time a bullet takes to reach the target, the greater it will
drop.
Post by mainframetechSince the back was hit and not the intended
target (the head), there must have been something gone bad with tat
particular shell which was probably aimed at the BOH and dropped down many
inches to hit the back. Now that you've been told all over again, try to
remember this time.
For a bullet to be traveling as slow as you are suggesting, it would have
dropped far more than from the head to the upper back. For example the .38
Special Ruby fired into Oswald's gut went in the front left and bulged out
his right side. Typical muzzle velocity of a .38 Special is in the 1300
fps range. You need a bullet traveling much, much slower than that,
probably no more than a few hundred fps. Unless the shot was fired from
very close range, the bullet would have dropped a number of feet.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThere are a few reasons why that would be,
None that make a lick of sense.
I didn't say YOU would understand it.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechbut there is no doubt it was
true, or the bullet would have made a hole in the tissues it encountered.
It did make a hole all the way through to the exit in the throat.
Nope, won't do. There is no proof the bullet went that way,
Every forensic pathologist who looked at the evidence disagrees with you.
Post by mainframetechand much
proof that it did NOT. And this is getting repetitive.
Your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence isn't proof of anything except
you don't have a clue.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechBut it went in only about an inch or so.
Preposterous.
As is your comment.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechIn the skull, yes! It did
exactly what he stated, by hitting the skull from the front and passing
through toward the rear building up pressure and finally blowing out the
BOH, which made a large hole seen by over 39 witnesses, and covering
whatever was behind the limo mostly on the left side.
The bruise on the pleura and lung show that the bullet struck and did
not pass through as a normal bullet would do. The SBT is dead.
DiMaio explained how a bullet could bruise the pleura while still passing
some distance from it. The pressure cavity is many times the diameter of
the bullet and it is the pressure cavity which caused the bruising. But I
guess you know better than he does even though your only training in
forensic medicine is what you read in his book.
Simple physics. The bullet struck the skin over the pleura and lung,
and therefore we know where it struck.
No, YOU think you know that. Every competent medical examiner disagrees
with you.
It did NOT go somewhere else to
Post by mainframetechmake a pressure point that traveled over to the pleura and lung to bruise
them. And I did NOT see in DiMaio's own words that he said that in the
JFK case that pressure made the bruises while the bullet passed through
somewhere else.
DiMaio's words explain why tissue not struck directly by a bullet could
still be injured as a result of the bullet passing close.
Post by mainframetechAnd where else would it pas through and not tear or
puncture some organ along the way?
The strap muscles. Read the AR.
Post by mainframetechThee is not free space in the human
body for loose bullets to pass through without touching tissue. Further
proof is that the AR made it clear that they did NOT dissect the path of
the bullet further than the entry, and they noted that the pleura was
INTACT.
This has all been repetitive and if we have to go over this again, I'm
gonna be outa here.
In the future you should do that before making yourself look foolish. It's
too late for this thread.
