JFK's fatal head wound: The truth for those who want to know (very graphic)

jmasland.com & others | 11/22/03

[Wolfstar]

The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film or altered. Why/how? Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto both the next frame and the previous frame in the sprocket hole areas. This is because the sproket holes are between frames, as shown below:

The head shot, frame-by-frame:

Frame 312

Frame 313

Frame 313 enlarged:

Frame 314

Frame 315

Frame 316

Frame 317

Frame 318

Frame 319

Frame 320

The head wound:

The large flap of skull, skin and other tissue blown out above and just in front of the president’s right ear. The flap stayed attached and hung over the president's right cheek. On the ride to Parkland, Mrs. Kennedy attempted to put it back in place. What the doctors saw at Parkland was the wound partially closed with the shattered pieces at the top rear of the wound missing. Hence, some doctors recalled a wound in that area:

[Wolfstar]

Thanks.

[wideminded]

I also heard that they did tests on melons of some sort and had to do many, many test shots to get one to recoil backwards like Alvarez' theory purports.

So you admit that the theory describes something that *can* happen! They used tape covered melons which obviously aren't perfect models of the human head. I don't know how many tests were done but I've seen the film of the melon falling backwards. Alvarez discusses the melon test and the physics behind it in the link I posted in #110.

[CholeraJoe]

I consider myself a REALLY SMART GUY, too. I'm a physician but I haven't won any Nobel Prizes, yet.

I just can't accept a single gunner theory.

[tpaine]

The single "magic" bullet theory is key to the controversy, not the direction of the head shot, which may never be proven. You insist there were three "verified" shots fired. One that missed, one that hit the president in the back and exited through his throat, and one that hit the president in the head. Thus you contradict yourself claiming the "only thing I am trying to do with this thread is demonstrate the truth about the fatal head shot clearly for those whose minds are open to the truth." You are arguing for the Reports theory & against any conspiracy theory.
— That the fatal head shot came from the rear and took out pretty much all of the upper right side of the president's head is not really an issue, as another shooter from the rear is entirely possible.

The timing of the previous shots, the wounds they made, when compared to the Z film, make it almost impossible for Osawald to have to have been the lone assassin.

Certainly, "a well-meant conspiracy theory will try to make the theory fit the facts, not the other way around." -- And this is exactly what the Commission did back in '64 with their single bullet bull.
--They made themselves into the whackos, and most of us never believed their lone gunman fantasy.
109 -tpaine-

_____________________________________

You are arguing for the Reports theory & against any conspiracy theory.

No, actually, I am not. All I've done is state what is known on the record.

Yes, you are, percisely because the flawed Reports "record" has aways been the issue.

There are three shots on the record, per photographs, witness testimony, wounds, and the marks of the bullet known to have missed. One missed. One hit the president in the back/neck. One hit him in the head.
Notice I have avoided the claim that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back/neck also hit Connolly. I'll let others argue the point.

That ~IS~ the point. The single "magic" bullet theory is key to the controversy, not the direction of the head shot, which may never be proven.

The number and direction of all the shots is key to the whole issue of whether or not there was a conspiracy. How can you say the direction of the head shot "may never be proven" when the proof is right in front of you?

You see 'proof', most don't.

I don't argue against a conspiracy, only against basing the argument for a conspiracy on a distortion of the known facts.

The distortions of many known facts are in the Report. You are arguing for the Reports distortions.

[Wolfstar]

As a physician, Cholera Joe, you should be interested in the information provided in EVALUATION OF THE MEDICAL, PATHOLOGICAL AND RELATED EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (BY THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGY PANEL) produced for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (The link most cheerily provided to you.)

As for right-side autopsy photo and the following x-rays, these also are from the HSCA evidence:

House Select Committee On Assassinations Exhibit #F-58. It shows where the flap of skull and skin seen in the Zapruder film fit in the president's skull.

[Wolfstar]

Since you cannot distinguish between merely stating what a report says to be a fact from the act of endorsing what the report says, all else is lost on you.

[gooleyman]

" So you admit that the theory describes something that *can* happen! They used tape covered melons which obviously aren't perfect models of the human head. I don't know how many tests were done but I've seen the film of the melon falling backwards. Alvarez discusses the melon test and the physics behind it in the link I posted in #110.

-----
I'm not ADMITTING anything. I'm just saying what I had seen on a documentary. I saw it many years before I knew what a VCR was if it even existed on the consumer level, so I can't go back and watch it again. You describe it as "falling" backwards. Maybe you didn't mean it to sound as if gravity simply acted upon it after the shot, but it did make me think that after so many unsuccessful tries, maybe they sort-of gave it a little tilt backwards so it would "fall" backward...OH there I go again (slaps himself.) Sorry I try to control the conspiracy kook in me, but it's tough. He's a pesky little bugger.

I just find it hard to believe that a person's head shot from the back would recoil backwards. Physics degree or no...Nuclear Expert or no, I think the radiation has gotten to his brain to come up with such a bogus scheme. I give him credit. He's baffled a lot of people with that BS. What was the reason they covered the melons with tape? Why not use coconuts...something hard like the skull? That Emperer (sp?) is as naked as a jaybird.

[CholeraJoe]

Show me the entrance wound on the back of his head, would you, please? Circle it in photoshop, huh? I just don't see it. Maybe I'm stupid but I can't see it. The back of his skull is intact. This looks like a tangential wound from the front.

[texasbluebell]

This looks like a tangential wound from the front.

Very interesting.

[Wolfstar]

Again, do your own research. I've gone to the trouble of providing you with a link to the work product of other physicians produced for the HSCA. You may agree or disagree with their findings, but as a physician, one would think you'd at least be interested in what they had to say.

And, as I keep trying to prompt you to do, then you might use your training and knowledge to educate the rest of us.

There has been an autopsy photo of the rear entrance wound published in books. However, I've done enough research and posting for one night. Time to go feed my dogs, one of whom I'm deeply concerned about because she's a 14-yr-old with a heart block. Know what that is? I'll check back in the morning for any response you'd care to give.

[Az Joe]

A show was on just this week and they showed an 80 year old guy shooting the rifle three times in less time than Oswald took.

[texasbluebell]

And, as I keep trying to prompt you to do, then you might use your training and knowledge to educate the rest of us.

But he IS, Wolfstar! He's telling us what this looks like according to his training. This is fascinating, Joe.

[Wolfstar]

PS, Joe: Before I shut down the PC for the night - the back of his head doesn't look intact to me. It looks severely fractured and deformed. However, at least the bone is still present, unlike the right front which disintegrated when that portion of the head exploded, just as you can see in the stills from the Zapruder film. That area of the right front is the exit wound.

Incidentally, "tangential" is a synonym for marginal, unimportant, nonessential, minor, and secondary. Now you can argue any conspriacy theory you'd like, but when someone is missing all of the bone structure in one area of his head, I'd hardly call that a tangential wound — unless you mean it in some clinical way not obvious to us non-physicians?

[Wolfstar]

He's telling us what this looks like according to his training.

Hmmm...

Really do have to sign off now. Dogs are hungry.

[wideminded]

What was the reason they covered the melons with tape? Why not use coconuts...something hard like the skull?

If you have ever cracked open a coconut you know that there is a lot of air inside along with the relatively hard coconut and a small amount of watery coconut milk. Alvarez and his assistants wanted to examine the possible effect of a jet of soft fluid-like matter. Brains are very soft. In fact they must be treated with chemicals just to harden them enough to permit examination if they are removed during an autopsy. Alvarez says that they wrapped the melons in Scotch filament tape to "mock up the tensile strength of the cranium". Undoubtedly a taped covered melon is not a perfect model of the human skull. But it is impressive the the first crude model of a skull that Alvarez made proved the theory correct. What really counts is the physics of the situation which you can read about in the link in #110.

Alvarez was not such a sleaze as to fake the test. In contrast to your previous assertion he says that 6 out of 7 tests resulted in backwards recoil of the melon. In the seventh test the melon "just rolled around". The reason I said "fell backwards" is that the film showed the melon on top of a step ladder, so that the direction of recoil would be the direction of fall.

[tpaine]

Since you cannot distinguish between merely stating what a report says to be a fact from the act of endorsing what the report says, all else is lost on you.
126 -Ws-

---

Weird.. -- You are endorsing that what the Report says is factual, yet you claim to be merely 'stating' that, not endorsing what the report says.

Your distinction is meaningless.
You support the Report.

[gooleyman]

"A show was on just this week and they showed an 80 year old guy shooting the rifle three times in less time than Oswald took.

-----
Was it the same bolt action rifle that Oswald used?
Did he hit his target 2 out of 3 times?
Actually 3 out of 3 since the theory is that a tree branch deflected the first shot.

[gooleyman]

Alvarez was not such a sleaze as to fake the test. In contrast to your previous assertion he says that 6 out of 7 tests resulted in backwards recoil of the melon.

-----
Sorry wideminded, I'm not buying. Just like you won't look at anything beyond the Warren Commission's report or things that support it, I can't buy Alvarez' BS. No need to reply. I won't listen to any explanation. Just like you. I guess I'm just as "wide minded" as you are.

p.s. Everyone has their price. Apparently Alvarez' price was met.

[Az Joe]

He dry fired it.

[gooleyman]

"He dry fired it."

-----
I think you know what I'm going to say. That doesn't prove Sugar Honey Ice Tea. (I'm not trying to be mean. Just funnin' with you.) But from what I remember of the marcsmen (sp?) they used in the test I talked about above. I think they used real bullets and a real target. They couldn't do it in the amount of time that it was done that fateful day in Dallas.