Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogCourtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetechI've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Of all the silly things you have chose to believe, this has to be in the
top 3 for absurdity. There is absolutely no evidence the limo was ever
sent to Michigan for refurbishment. Just the story some clown made up 30
years later to try to make himself sound important.
We've ben over all this before, but you need recognition, so you'll
plow through it all over again. Forcing me to show you up again.
Forget for a moment how silly YOU think it is, and see if it works
mechanically. Actually, it does, which was my first test. Second, you
fell for it all over again with your saying that George Whitaker wanted to
"make himself sound important". In reality, which you forgot, Whitaker
wanted the lawyer to never mention his name or give him away for fear he
might lose his job with the Ford Company. The lawyer (Douglas Weldon, JD)
kept Whitaker anonymous until his death per his wishes. So you go wrong
once again. In fact, the wish to remain anonymous is even a strengthening
of his story of repair and replacement of parts on the limo.
Post by bigdogNo record of the limo
being shipped to Michigan. No record by the Ford Motor Co. that they did
any work on the limo.
Naturally! Think it through. The plotters didn't want anyone to know
they were fixing the windshield, so that later they could say the
windshield did NOT have a hole through it, but only a tiny crack. It
would ne good client service for Ford to do a favor for the W.H. and keep
no records. But there is a record of the limo not being visited during a
very busy time, for the one day that the limo was gone from the W.H.
garage. The log tells it all. A day after the limo was back, they called
for a repair crew to come and replace the windshield which had only a
small crack in it at that time.
Post by bigdogIt would have been logistically impossible to
transport the limo to Michigan, completely strip and replace the interior
and the windshield and return it to Washington in time to have the
windshield cracked again and replaced again.
Oh? You know these things, eh? :) They had a C-130 available that
had nothing else to do and it normally transported the limo and other
vehicles when the president traveled. It easily could take the limo off
to Michigan and lose very little time. Then bring it back. As to
stripping the interior and replacing the windshield with a standard
windshield from that model car from stock, I don't se a problem.
Post by bigdogOn top of that, since it was
a stretch limo, the stock interior pieces would not have fit the limo.
Ford did mass production. They didn't do customization work which is why
the original modification and the refurbishments were done by the company
in Cincinnati which specialized in that kind of work.
How silly of you. That's exactly the argument you made the last time
we went through this foolishness. You see, Ford had a shop for just that
problem. They made interiors to order for new models to get measurements
of the individual parts of the limo for later manufacture. They could
easily do it in a day or less. I've watched a lady called 'Sue' on a
fixit program on TV make seat covers in no time.
Post by bigdogBut you are willing
to overlook all that simply because some bozo claimed many years later
that he saw the limo in Michigan. You are willing to do that because you
are so desperate to believe his cockamamie story.
That's the second time you've tried to minimize the statements of
George Whitaker by insulting him. first you call him a "clown" and then a
"bozo", yet you never knew him and didn't know he was a manager of the
glass shop for Ford. He got his orders from a VP of Ford when the call
came in. Gee, I don't feel too "desperate" but I do feel a chuckle coming
on at you floundering around having forgotten this whole argument, and
falling into the same old traps.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
It is equally absurd to think that a shooter could have fired a bullet
from the front through that spot in the windshield missing Greer,
Kellerman, and Connally, struck JFK where you claim to see an entrance
wound and then exit the rear of his head.
WRONG again! Missing Greer And Kellerman would be easy since the
bullet hole in the windshield was a bit to the left of the centerline of
the windshield and would also pass between Connally and Nellie to strike
JFK in the forehead/temple area. The shooter would have to be at about
the other side of the overpass, kneeling on the left side of the road.
But there is a straight line from that point through the windshield
between Greer and Kellerman and between Connally and Nellie, and strike
JFK. It's a straight line, but I know you are unable to image something
of that type. Some people can and some can't.
However, that isn't the only path a bullet could take to reach the
point on JFK where the final bullet struck. If his head was slightly to
the right, it could come from the GK, or similar. And the hole through
the limo windshield would just be lost somewhere.
Post by bigdogThe geometry doesn't work and
you can't make it work which is why you have never even attempted to show
a plausible path for that bullet. There isn't one.
WRONG! Saying it won't make it so. You have no ability to picture the
path which is straight.
Post by bigdogIt would have required
the mother of all magic bullets. A line from the crack in the windshield
to your imagined entry wound on JFK's forehead would have been on an
upward trajectory.
WRONG! There wasn't a "crack" in the windshield. There was a clear
bullet hole THROUGH it. There were witnesses that knew it and saw it.
They corroborate each other.
Post by bigdogThat would have required a shooter to be below, in
front of and slightly to the driver's side of the limo. That would have
meant he was on Elm St as the motorcade approached and not be seen by
either the lead motorcycles or the lead car.
Well, you're doing better at imaging, but you're not there yet. The
shooter would probably have to be kneeling at the left side of Elm street
on the other side of the overpass firing slightly upward. He might have
also been in the sewer system on the left, that was like the one on the
right, but just past the overpass.
Post by bigdogAltgens last photo taken from
behind the limo as it approached the underpass shows no shooter where you
need him to be.
Of course not. You think he's going to fire a shot at the POTUS and
just sit there waiting to be recognized? One shot and he was out of there
probably through the rain relief system.
Post by bigdoghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eu5YzrXO6s4/UpGwXKe6s1I/AAAAAAAAM8E/uRnFfTscapc/s1600/1459135_10201976501189652_821677783_n.jpg
Try and use your head. With that photo you couldn't see a thing past
the overpass.
Post by bigdogThe other problem which should be painfully obvious to even you is the
lead car would have been between your phantom shooter and the limo making
the shot completely impossible, even if somehow you could work out the
geometry which you can't. But you go on believing somebody shot JFK from
in front of the limo and through the windshield just because one schmuck
in Michigan said he saw a bullet hole.
WRONG yet again! So tiring correcting your errors, you make so many
of them! The shooter was probably on the left of Elm street. From far
enough away the is a shot at the limo. And now the anonymous man in
Michigan has to be insulted one again in your desperate quest to cover up
the bullet hole in the front of the forehead/temple area, that you can't
even see!
There's an old phrase you've heard before...methinks he protesteth
too much. All your slaps at the poor guy in Michigan just because he
though what he had seen might be important to someone.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechSince this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because
you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You
must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Post by bigdogIt's funny that you think this horseshit you present could correct
anybody.
Yep, but it's me correcting you. Over and over.
Chris