JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

FORENSIC SCIENCE AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS

Michael T. Griffith
2002

"As stated earlier, I asked several medical examiners about the likelihood that an FMJ bullet would leave dozens of fragments inside a skull. The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull, and he quoted from Dr. Vincent DiMaio's book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be "few":

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a "lead snowstorm". . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug." (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

That does not answer the questions I raised. Perhaps you missed them. Here, allow me to repeat them, so you can respond to them sensibly rather than just pressing the quote button then dumping down something you have copied and pasted:

Quote:

Did you read pages 556 and 557?

As it is rather odd. You suggest that JFK was shot from the front. Yet the bullets that caused his wounds were fired from LHOs rifle, and his rifle alone. And that despite your claims it is impossible for FMJ bullets to break apart, that is exactly what they did under tests.

Are you going to supply evidence to counter the material evidence? Or have you just condemned yourself by refering to the WC?

So you have not answered if you read the pages of the WC tht immediately followed your quote, nor have you explained if the Warren commission is a valid source for your "evidence".

Well done for answering neither point I raised, with a lump of confirmation bias and the opinion of somebody esle. Greg is discussing the actual bullets. Those are material evidence.

Do you have any to support your theories?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

[Robert] has not supplied anything new with this post, it is a partial repeat of an earlier post.

He hasn't supplied anything new since that doofus with the broomstick picture. All we're getting now is regurgitated baloney.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

He hasn't supplied anything new since that doofus with the broomstick picture. All we're getting now is regurgitated baloney.

Evidence of the Fashion Crime of the Century, a doofus in a Naugahyde jacket and bargain label Dockers.


ETA: Wielding a broom that he was probably pushing down a hallway half an hour before.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

1. Michael T Griffith is not impartial, he is a CT and his evidence is not conclusive.

2. He sent out requests to many forensics experts and few replied.
Dr. Di Maio did not reply, his book was quoted and then out of context. I say out of context because Di Maio's comments refer to an FMJ and the bullets are clearly not FMJ's.

The "bullets are clearly not FMJ's"???? Then, you disagree with the Warren Report which says the bullets shot' from the TSBD are indeed FMJ? Why can't you answer such a simple question straight forward?

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

I am not surprised.

TAke it nice and slow Robert. You say the fatal shot could only have been a frangible bullet that exploded in JFKs head, because fragments of the bullet are not consistent with an FMJ round.

It has just been shown to you that the round used was not an FMJ.

That means there is no reason to suspect a frangible bullet.
That means there is no evidence to support your claim.
That means your "analysis" of the Z film is bunk.

Now, have you got any material evidence yet, or just more bunk?

I'm confused.

FMJ = Full Metal Jacket; aka copper-clad or nickel-chrome clad (over a lead interior).

The round used was a FMJ bullet. Did you think the F in FMJ meant frangible?

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

FORENSIC SCIENCE AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS

Michael T. Griffith
2002

"As stated earlier, I asked several medical examiners about the likelihood that an FMJ bullet would leave dozens of fragments inside a skull. The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull, and he quoted from Dr. Vincent DiMaio's book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be "few":

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a "lead snowstorm". . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug." (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

You already questioned Dodd's and DiMaio's expertise because they weren't at Parkland or at the autopsy, Robert. Remember this post?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.

Thanks,

RP

So why quote what Drs. Green and Berg think, since they weren't at Parkland either?

Did Drs. Green and Berg conduct any actual tests, to validate what they *think* should happen? No?

Well, why not look at an actual test?

The Warren Commission had tests conducted using a Full-Metal Jacketed (FMJ) copper-clad bullet of the same caliber and manufacturer as Oswald's purported ammunition. Those tests reveal that type of bullet could leave a lot of lead behind as the bullet broke up. In fact, in one of the tests, the bullet broke in half (just like the two fragments found in the limo after the assassination that were traceable to Oswald's gun).

And, as pointed out before, even DiMaio's book and the quote you provide says this can happen: "In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone."

And I've also provided a link to the Z-film frame just before JFK is struck in the head. I've aligned, to the best of my ability, the path of the bullet you say struck JFK in the forehead and exited the back of his head. That bullet must not have come from the grassy knoll, as the grassy knoll is above and to the right of JFK's head, whereas this bullet path is from the left of the limo and below.

Here's the image with the bullet path you allege drawn in:

http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Please explain how that bullet came from the knoll, from above and to the right of JFK's head at the time of the head shot.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Hank

[GregHouseMD]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The "bullets are clearly not FMJ's"???? Then, you disagree with the Warren Report which says the bullets shot' from the TSBD are indeed FMJ? Why can't you answer such a simple question straight forward?

When you start doing this, then so will I.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

I'm confused.

FMJ = Full Metal Jacket; aka copper-clad or nickel-chrome clad (over a lead interior).

The round used was a FMJ bullet. Did you think the F in FMJ meant frangible?

Hank

No worries I am happy to clarify that post was discussing the theory of GregHouse's that the copper clad bullet used was not "full" metal jacket because the base surface was still exposed lead.


He may or maynot be right, the FBI retain the bullet in question in their archives.

For what it is worth I am not particularly worried as I have never seen convincing evidence an FmJ round could not act as the rounds that struck JFK did, and have seen evidence that they can, replicated through testing.

Stupidly I was having trouble finding the reference because i was searching the full commission testemony and not the report of findings.

[GregHouseMD]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

No worries I am happy to clarify that post was discussing the theory of GregHouse's that the copper clad bullet used was not "full" metal jacket because the base surface was still exposed lead.


He may or maynot be right, the FBI retain the bullet in question in their archives.

For what it is worth I am not particularly worried as I have never seen convincing evidence an FmJ round could not act as the rounds that struck JFK did, and have seen evidence that they can, replicated through testing.

Stupidly I was having trouble finding the reference because i was searching the full commission testemony and not the report of findings.

I'm going to do something here that I predict we will never see Robert Prey do. I will admit to error on my part.

FMJ- Full Metal Jacket: The lead core is surrounded by a jacket of copper, or a similar material but the base is exposed.

TMJ- Total Metal Jacket: the lead core (or other core material) is surrounded by a jacket of metal that completely covers all of the core leaving nothing except the jack exposed.

The bottom line here is the base of the FMJ is exposed and lead can and will become dislodged depending on how much stress it experiences.

The terminology does not change the fact that the bullets LHO used to Kill JFK can and did fragment, even though they were designed not to do so because nothing works exactly the way it should every time it is used.

[GregHouseMD]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

FORENSIC SCIENCE AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS

Michael T. Griffith
2002

"As stated earlier, I asked several medical examiners about the likelihood that an FMJ bullet would leave dozens of fragments inside a skull. The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull, and he quoted from Dr. Vincent DiMaio's book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be "few":

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a "lead snowstorm". . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug." (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

As to the bold text, I'm not finding that quote attributed to Dr. Di Maio. I have a digital copy of his book "Gunshot Wounds..." and while a couple of references to FMJ bullets pop up while using "Find", the above quote does not get found.

I did find this in the book:

Quote:

A fact not often appreciated is that full metal-jacketed rifle bullets may break up in the body without hitting bone.

Unfortunately, I cannot link the quote but this exists on Page 79 of Di Maio's book "Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques".

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

I'm going to do something here that I predict we will never see Robert Prey do. I will admit to error on my part.

FMJ- Full Metal Jacket: The lead core is surrounded by a jacket of copper, or a similar material but the base is exposed.

TMJ- Total Metal Jacket: the lead core (or other core material) is surrounded by a jacket of metal that completely covers all of the core leaving nothing except the jack exposed.

The bottom line here is the base of the FMJ is exposed and lead can and will become dislodged depending on how much stress it experiences.

The terminology does not change the fact that the bullets LHO used to Kill JFK can and did fragment, even though they were designed not to do so because nothing works exactly the way it should every time it is used.

There is a difference between a "fragment" and a "snow storm."

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

You already questioned Dodd's and DiMaio's expertise because they weren't at Parkland or at the autopsy, Robert. Remember this post?




So why quote what Drs. Green and Berg think, since they weren't at Parkland either?

Did Drs. Green and Berg conduct any actual tests, to validate what they *think* should happen? No?

Well, why not look at an actual test?

The Warren Commission had tests conducted using a Full-Metal Jacketed (FMJ) copper-clad bullet of the same caliber and manufacturer as Oswald's purported ammunition. Those tests reveal that type of bullet could leave a lot of lead behind as the bullet broke up. In fact, in one of the tests, the bullet broke in half (just like the two fragments found in the limo after the assassination that were traceable to Oswald's gun).

And, as pointed out before, even DiMaio's book and the quote you provide says this can happen: "In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone."

And I've also provided a link to the Z-film frame just before JFK is struck in the head. I've aligned, to the best of my ability, the path of the bullet you say struck JFK in the forehead and exited the back of his head. That bullet must not have come from the grassy knoll, as the grassy knoll is above and to the right of JFK's head, whereas this bullet path is from the left of the limo and below.

Here's the image with the bullet path you allege drawn in:

http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Please explain how that bullet came from the knoll, from above and to the right of JFK's head at the time of the head shot.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Hank

Your bullet path is contrived and there is no predictable logic to the way a bullet, especially a frangible bullet will behave especially when hitting bone.

[TheRedWorm]

Robert, do you believe this stuff or are you putting on a show?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Your bullet path is contrived and there is no predictable logic to the way a bullet, especially a frangible bullet will behave especially when hitting bone.

Then how can you discount the fmj bullet acting as described if it can not be predicted? How could you ever look at a wound and say "it should not do that" if there is no valid prediction to what should or could do?

How, in short, has ballistics ever been a science?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Robert, do you believe this stuff or are you putting on a show?

Whether it's for real or not, my New Year's resolution is to pay less attention to people like Robert Prey. I've sworn off poppycock and regurgitated baloney for 2012.

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Whether it's for real or not, my New Year's resolution is to pay less attention to people like Robert Prey. I've sworn off poppycock and regurgitated baloney for 2012.

Ignore them and they will eventually disappear...

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Ignore them and they will eventually disappear...

I don't care if he goes away or not, he's just run out of things to say. He needs to go out and buy a new set of JFK conspiracy flashcards, preferably a larger set with different cards. His current set has about five items which we've heard ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Your bullet path is contrived and there is no predictable logic to the way a bullet, especially a frangible bullet will behave especially when hitting bone.

You mean this bullet path?
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Yes, it is contrived, I agree. But it is *your* bullet path, not mine.

Remember, you posted two drawings and a carefully cropped photo to illustrate where you thought the entry and exit wounds were in JFK's head. Hopefully, I do not have to link to those three illustrations, you do recall posting all three, right?

You stated the entrance wound was in JFK's right forehead, and the exit wound was in the lower back of his head. Your claims, not mine.

I merely connected *your* purported entrance wound to *your* purported exit wound (to the best of my ability) and asked you to correct it if it was drawn incorrectly. I also asked if it made any sense.

To date, you have not provided a correction to that illustration, nor have you explained how it is incorrect. Is the entrance wound too high? Too low? Is the exit wound misplaced? You merely called it contrived, but explain not any further.

*You* claim the shot came from above JFK and to his right, but the wound illustration I made from your wound claims and from one frame of the Zapruder film shows an entry and exit that comes from below and to the left of the center-line of the limo.

Once again, here's my attempt to make sense of *your* claims.
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

I admit I cannot make sense of your claims.

Can you?

If so, please provide an illustration with the proper bullet path draw into the z-film frame 312 (the one immediately before the massive explosion that you claim came from the right front and above and struck JFK in the forehead). Or are you claiming a tangential shot to the head by a frangible bullet, instead of merely causing a skin wound and grazing the scalp, would divert itself almost 90 degrees, make a small entrance hole, remain intact until it struck the back of the skull, and then break apart and cause a large exit wound? Does any qualified pathologist in the world (or gun expert for that matter) agree with that theory of yours? If that's not your theory, please enlighten me as to what is your theory.

And of course, you failed to elucidate entirely why you think DiMaio and Dodd needed to be at the autopsy or at Parkland, but why Green and Berg did not. You also failed to explain why the tests that left behind a bullet split in two and numerous fragments shouldn't be believed either. In short, your response was another in a long line of non-responsive responses.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

You already questioned Dodd's and DiMaio's expertise because they weren't at Parkland or at the autopsy, Robert. Remember this post?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.

Thanks,

RP

So why quote what Drs. Green and Berg think, since they weren't at Parkland either?

Did Drs. Green and Berg conduct any actual tests, to validate what they *think* should happen? No?

Well, why not look at an actual test?

The Warren Commission had tests conducted using a Full-Metal Jacketed (FMJ) copper-clad bullet of the same caliber and manufacturer as Oswald's purported ammunition. Those tests reveal that type of bullet could leave a lot of lead behind as the bullet broke up. In fact, in one of the tests, the bullet broke in half (just like the two fragments found in the limo after the assassination that were traceable to Oswald's gun).

And, as pointed out before, even DiMaio's book and the quote you provide says this can happen: "In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone."

And I've also provided a link to the Z-film frame just before JFK is struck in the head. I've aligned, to the best of my ability, the path of the bullet you say struck JFK in the forehead and exited the back of his head. That bullet must not have come from the grassy knoll, as the grassy knoll is above and to the right of JFK's head, whereas this bullet path is from the left of the limo and below.

Here's the image with the bullet path you allege drawn in:

http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Please explain how that bullet came from the knoll, from above and to the right of JFK's head at the time of the head shot.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Hank

Hank

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

You mean this bullet path?
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Almost as if Robert had dictated it. Robert, did Governor Connelly shoot Kennedy?

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

As to the bold text, I'm not finding that quote attributed to Dr. Di Maio. I have a digital copy of his book "Gunshot Wounds..." and while a couple of references to FMJ bullets pop up while using "Find", the above quote does not get found.

I did find this in the book:



Unfortunately, I cannot link the quote but this exists on Page 79 of Di Maio's book "Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques".

The bold portion [below] is Griffith's paraphrase or summary of what he was told. The actual quote from page 318 follows that bold-faced portion.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

FORENSIC SCIENCE AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS

Michael T. Griffith
2002

"As stated earlier, I asked several medical examiners about the likelihood that an FMJ bullet would leave dozens of fragments inside a skull. The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull, and he quoted from Dr. Vincent DiMaio's book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be "few":

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a "lead snowstorm". . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug." (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

You mean this bullet path?
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Yes, it is contrived, I agree. But it is *your* bullet path, not mine.

Remember, you posted two drawings and a carefully cropped photo to illustrate where you thought the entry and exit wounds were in JFK's head. Hopefully, I do not have to link to those three illustrations, you do recall posting all three, right?

You stated the entrance wound was in JFK's right forehead, and the exit wound was in the lower back of his head. Your claims, not mine.

I merely connected *your* purported entrance wound to *your* purported exit wound (to the best of my ability) and asked you to correct it if it was drawn incorrectly. I also asked if it made any sense.

To date, you have not provided a correction to that illustration, nor have you explained how it is incorrect. Is the entrance wound too high? Too low? Is the exit wound misplaced? You merely called it contrived, but explain not any further.

*You* claim the shot came from above JFK and to his right, but the wound illustration I made from your wound claims and from one frame of the Zapruder film shows an entry and exit that comes from below and to the left of the center-line of the limo.

Once again, here's my attempt to make sense of *your* claims.
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

I admit I cannot make sense of your claims.

Can you?

If so, please provide an illustration with the proper bullet path draw into the z-film frame 312 (the one immediately before the massive explosion that you claim came from the right front and above and struck JFK in the forehead). Or are you claiming a tangential shot to the head by a frangible bullet, instead of merely causing a skin wound and grazing the scalp, would divert itself almost 90 degrees, make a small entrance hole, remain intact until it struck the back of the skull, and then break apart and cause a large exit wound? Does any qualified pathologist in the world (or gun expert for that matter) agree with that theory of yours? If that's not your theory, please enlighten me as to what is your theory.

And of course, you failed to elucidate entirely why you think DiMaio and Dodd needed to be at the autopsy or at Parkland, but why Green and Berg did not. You also failed to explain why the tests that left behind a bullet split in two and numerous fragments shouldn't be believed either. In short, your response was another in a long line of non-responsive responses.

Hank

You'll get a better response from me if you will post pithy points concisely. As far as the arrow is concerned, the one you drew, it is pointing upwards. Illogical if from the grassy knoll. Should be pointing down from the right temple to the occiput.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Whether it's for real or not, my New Year's resolution is to pay less attention to people like Robert Prey. I've sworn off poppycock and regurgitated baloney for 2012.

You guys keep saying that, and yet keep coming back for more punishment.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by robert prey

you guys keep saying that, and yet keep coming back for more punishment stundie quotes.

ftfy

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You guys keep saying that, and yet keep coming back for more punishment.

LOL.

Still hobbling about on your injured feet?

[GregHouseMD]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

There is a difference between a "fragment" and a "snow storm."

Robert, try to follow me here. I used the word fragment as a "verb" and not a "noun".

But it doesn't matter, regardless of what you are told, if it does not agree with your preconceived notions, it cannot be right.

Open your mind, it will change your life in a good way.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Your bullet path is contrived and there is no predictable logic to the way a bullet, especially a frangible bullet will behave especially when hitting bone.

There is no real 'predictable, logical' way to determine how a bullet will behave once it hits a living being. It could do any number of things, even completely miss all of the vitals of the person leaving them with nothing more than a nasty gunshot wound to tend to.

A year ago a congress woman in New Mexico (I think it was) was shot by a man in cold blood... in the head. She survived without the bullet doing much in the way of damage despite what bullets are designed to do.

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

Open your mind, it will change your life in a good way.

How do you think he bought into this crap in the first place?

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

...<snip>...

A year ago a congress woman in New Mexico (I think it was) was shot by a man in cold blood... in the head. She survived without the bullet doing much in the way of damage despite what bullets are designed to do.
...<snip>...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabby_Giffords

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You'll get a better response from me if you will post pithy points concisely. As far as the arrow is concerned, the one you drew, it is pointing upwards. Illogical if from the grassy knoll. Should be pointing down from the right temple to the occiput.

Yes, it should. But I can't get it to work with the entrance wound you claimed.

So draw that for me.

But remember, you posted this picture claiming a forehead entry wound:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Of course, you also posted this drawing, which shows the whole front of the head missing:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b6f48a6d1b.jpg

So *you* draw the line where you think it should be and see if you can make it logical *and* still agree with the two images above.

Thanks Much!
Hank

[Tomtomkent]

Robert make two pieces of his own evidence fit together? That would be a first.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Yes, it should. But I can't get it to work with the entrance wound you claimed.

So draw that for me.

But remember, you posted this picture claiming a forehead entry wound:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Of course, you also posted this drawing, which shows the whole front of the head missing:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b6f48a6d1b.jpg

So *you* draw the line where you think it should be and see if you can make it logical *and* still agree with the two images above.

Thanks Much!
Hank

Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

Robert, try to follow me here. I used the word fragment as a "verb" and not a "noun".

But it doesn't matter, regardless of what you are told, if it does not agree with your preconceived notions, it cannot be right.

Open your mind, it will change your life in a good way.

Pre-conceived nothing. My conclusions are conceived (not pre-conceived) by the 30 plus first hand medical witnesses at Parkland.

[Tomtomkent]

And yet, every single time Robert attempts to discuss actual evidence he hand waves it away with preconcieved notions based solely upon the opinion that there was a whitewash or conspiracy. Not once has he managed to be objective, or to prove the Parkland statements accurate with actual evidence. Not once hashe accepted hischosen narrative is proven false because it is not supported by anything more than unreliable human memory.

His notions are entirely preconcieved and biased. He believes there to have been aconspiracy, is unable to be objective and will only seek to support some statements instead of veryifying them.

[Tomtomkent]

And yet, every single time Robert attempts to discuss actual evidence he hand waves it away with preconcieved notions based solely upon the opinion that there was a whitewash or conspiracy. Not once has he managed to be objective, or to prove the Parkland statements accurate with actual evidence. Not once hashe accepted hischosen narrative is proven false because it is not supported by anything more than unreliable human memory.

His notions are entirely preconcieved and biased. He believes there to have been aconspiracy, is unable to be objective and will only seek to support some statements instead of veryifying them.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.

So someone shot him through the windshield?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

So someone shot him through the windshield?

What I find interesting is that if all the drawings and descriptions Robert claims to be accurate and base on perfect testemony are true the bullet would have to curve in the head to enter through the temple and exit through the centre of the back of the head.

But to also enter and exit somewhere entirely different to match the other drawing, and somewhere else for the photo...

[GregHouseMD]

I have come to the conclusion that Robert is a performance artist, nothing more. He has no beliefs in any CT's he simply is arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. He is short on facts. He regurgitates the same comments over and over because he has not taken the time to do any in depth, independent research.

2. He repeats the same meaningless phrases time and again without respect to whatever question has been presented.

3. He refuses toi answer questions or even enter into a discussion.

4. His arguments, if you can call them that, make s=no sense or are based on no evidence whatsoever.

I love a spirited discussion with both sides presenting their views and true debate but this is nothing like that.

I have not changed my mind about anything. I still think LHO acted alone.
I think vaccines saves millions of lives every year.

I think Robert Prey is a fool with nothing better to do than try and bait people.

I choose not to be part of this farce any longer.

Good luck to you all. I suggest you follow my path and find a more meaningful way to spend your time on this wonderful website.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.

Your entrance wound on the zfilm does not match the entrance wound you claim was on the pre-autopsy photo. You have the entrance wound in the hair and to the left of the hairline in the zfilm (and too high to boot).

The pre-autopsy photo shows a wound on the forehead, in the bare skin. You will have to move the entrance wound lower and more forward to get it to align with the pre-autopsy photo (about where I put it, I think).

Your claim of a wound in the forehead: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg
Your cleaimed entrance wound on JFK: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletpath.jpg

We haven't even discussed the differences between the pre-autopsy photo above and this drawing by Paul O'connor:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b6f48a6d1b.jpg

Nor the differences between the O'Connor drawing and the illustration of McClelland's wound description as it appeared in Six Seconds in Dallas (by Josiah Thompson, 1966): http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e72478f327.jpg

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Ignore them and they will eventually disappear...

Nope. It's been 48 years and they proliferate like flies.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

I have come to the conclusion that Robert is a performance artist, nothing more. He has no beliefs in any CT's he simply is arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. He is short on facts. He regurgitates the same comments over and over because he has not taken the time to do any in depth, independent research.

2. He repeats the same meaningless phrases time and again without respect to whatever question has been presented.

3. He refuses toi answer questions or even enter into a discussion.

4. His arguments, if you can call them that, make s=no sense or are based on no evidence whatsoever.

I love a spirited discussion with both sides presenting their views and true debate but this is nothing like that.

I have not changed my mind about anything. I still think LHO acted alone.
I think vaccines saves millions of lives every year.

I think Robert Prey is a fool with nothing better to do than try and bait people.

I choose not to be part of this farce any longer.

Good luck to you all. I suggest you follow my path and find a more meaningful way to spend your time on this wonderful website.

Sigh... Another one bites the dust.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Sigh... Another one bites the dust.

Sigh. Another post where you haven't produced any material evidence yet.