Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance

[Joe Elliott]

The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.

Let’s apply your logical to the bullet that wounded JFK in the back:

The autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1. However, the hole in JFK’s coat indicates an entrance wound that was a couple of inches lower.

Logical conclusion, that JFK was hit in the back by two different bullets. One which did not put a hole in the jacket but did cause an entrance wound. And a second bullet that caused an entrance wound, but did not put a hole in the jacket.

No, the logical conclusion is that one bullet put a hole in the jacket and caused the entrance wound in the back. The misalignment must have been caused by the coat riding up, which can be seen in some photographs taken just before JFK was wounded.

In other words, the discrepancy is caused by someone making an error in estimating the location of the bullet wound. Either one should not use the location of the entrance wound on the body to determine the location of the entrance wound on the body. Or one should not use the location of the bullet hole in the clothes to determine the location of the entrance wound on the body.



Your “Logical conclusion” about the head wound has a similar fallacy. The was two teams that estimated the position of the entrance wound. One team made an error in its estimate.

Your “Logical conclusion” would be logical if the Clark Panel said “Yes, we see the wound near the EOP, but there is a second wound near the cowlick”. But that didn’t happen. No team saw two different entrance wounds. They all see one entrance wound but just make a different estimate of its location.

[Joe Elliott]

Nope,

The chip of concrete that wounded James Tague most likely was sent flying by the jacket-less bullet that struck the curb near him as a result of Oswald's missed shot -- the shot he fired about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, which bullet lost its copper jacket when it glanced the traffic light's cross arm, thereby explaining how the metallic smear left behind on the curb had no trace of copper in it.

--  MWT 

I disagree with you and I think most people on this.

There was no chip of concrete that was sent flying from the curb. There was only a lead smear on the corner of the curb. That is something many people have agree on.

Click on the picture below to see the curb with the lead smear:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/smear.htm

And the lead smear was not caused by a bullet, in all probability. This is where I disagree with most people.

If it was caused by a bullet, how was it, by sheer coincidence, that a bullet just happened to hit directly on the corner of the curb. The odds are roughly 25 to 1, that the bullet fragment would strike right on the corner, and not an inch or two beyond it or below it. Or at least miss by a quarter of an inch. Such a coincidence should not be accepted if there is some other way the lead smear could have gotten on the location without a coincidence. If there was some way a lead object could have been guided precisely there. And there is such a way.

Thousands of cars pass this curb each day. If one of them drifted out of its lane, the tire would bump against the curb. The rim of the curb could guide a lead balancing weight precisely to the corner of the curb.

Indeed, in the picture of the curb which is now stored at the National Archives:



One can even see curved lines marking the curb. One of these curved lines point right at the lead smear.

Another coincidence? Or was this curved line made by the rim of a car’s tire, and the rim guided the lead balancing weight right to the corner where some of the lead was rubbed off.


Question for anyone:

How did the bullet fragment cause a curved mark on the curb that points right at the lead smear it made?

Or was this curve mark unrelated to the bullet and it just happens to point at the lead smear by coincidence. And the lead smear itself just happens to be on the corner of the curb, again, by coincidence.

[Michael Walton]

You may want to take a look at this. This is a photo illustration combining two photos. It may show the damage to the head when the scalp is in its normal position and when it's reflected. Note that it's a large animated GIF so may take a moment to load:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gj6op6Miask/XdfqNLPD_tI/AAAAAAAAFco/Jr-scSZf3lYN40rzcrRg-ePNBwbDkn1wQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/JFK-Back-of-Head-Animated.gif

[Bill Chapman]

"Logical conclusion"? LOL

Even the worst of contradictions are logical on the far shores of the lunatic fringe: Set the patsy up behind the limo and then claim Kennedy was shot from the front.

WOW

[John Iacoletti]

Let’s apply your logical to the bullet that wounded JFK in the back:

The autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1. However, the hole in JFK’s coat indicates an entrance wound that was a couple of inches lower.

Logical conclusion, that JFK was hit in the back by two different bullets. One which did not put a hole in the jacket but did cause an entrance wound. And a second bullet that caused an entrance wound, but did not put a hole in the jacket.

No, the logical conclusion is that one bullet put a hole in the jacket and caused the entrance wound in the back. The misalignment must have been caused by the coat riding up, which can be seen in some photographs taken just before JFK was wounded.

In other words, the discrepancy is caused by someone making an error in estimating the location of the bullet wound.

Or by someone making an error when he claimed that "the autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1."

[John Iacoletti]

If it was caused by a bullet, how was it, by sheer coincidence, that a bullet just happened to hit directly on the corner of the curb. The odds are roughly 25 to 1, that the bullet fragment would strike right on the corner, and not an inch or two beyond it or below it.

This is a logical fallacy.  Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere.  This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.

[Joe Elliott]

This is a logical fallacy.  Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere.  This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.

No, this is not a logical fallacy.


If someone says:

“I will pay you 1 dollar and you can cut the deck and I will flip over the top card. If the top card is a 4 of spades, you must pay me 5 dollars. If it is any other card, you pay me nothing.”

Now, if I am foolish enough to take this bet, I cut the deck, and he appears to turn over the top card and it is the 4 of spades, it probably didn’t happen by luck. Maybe it was luck, but probably not. The four of spades was probably “guided” there.


Similarly, the lead smear occurring smack, on the corner, right where a curved line, perhaps made by the rim of a tire, is pointing to, probably did not occur there by luck. It was probably guided there by the rim of the tire.


If the lead smear was caused by a tire’s lead balancing weight, the smear occurred right where we would expect it to occur, on the corner of a curb. And it may have a curved line pointing to it.

If the lead smear was caused by a bullet fragment, it was a fluke that the fragment just happened to strike right on the corner of the curb, right on the same spot a tire rim would guide it to.

If:
•   lead smears left by a car tend to occur on the corner of a curb
•   lead smears left a bullet fragment tend to occur on any concrete surface

and:
•   a lead smear was found and it is smack on the corner of the curb

then:
•   it probably was caused by a car, not by a bullet.

[Joe Elliott]

This is a logical fallacy.  Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere.  This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.

No, this is not a logical fallacy.


If someone says:

“I will pay you 1 dollar and you can cut the deck and I will flip over the top card. If the top card is a 4 of spades, you must pay me 5 dollars. If it is any other card, you pay me nothing.”

Now, if I am foolish enough to take this bet, I cut the deck, and he appears to turn over the top card and it is the 4 of spades, it probably didn’t happen by luck. Maybe it was luck, but probably not. The four of spades was probably “guided” there.


Similarly, the lead smear occurring smack, on the corner, right where a curved line, perhaps made by the rim of a tire, is pointing to, probably did not occur there by luck. It was probably guided there by the rim of the tire.


If the lead smear was caused by a tire’s lead balancing weight, the smear occurred right where we would expect it to occur, on the corner of a curb. And it may have a curved line pointing to it.

If the lead smear was caused by a bullet fragment, it was a fluke that the fragment just happened to strike right on the corner of the curb, right on the same spot a tire rim would guide it to.

If:
•   lead smears left by a car tend to occur on the corner of a curb
•   lead smears left a bullet fragment tend to occur on any concrete surface

and:
•   a lead smear was found and it is smack on the corner of the curb

then:
•   it probably was caused by a car, not by a bullet.


Question for anyone:

Is my logic in error? Is this a clear example of a logical fallacy? If so, explain.

Note, I am not saying it is an absolute certainty the lead smear was caused by a car. Only that it probably was, particularly with a curved line pointing right at the dark lead smear.