Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance  (Read 12476 times)

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2020, 05:59:00 AM »
Advertisement
I don’t know. But I find it unlikely that Oswald fired a bullet that early because:

•   The angular speed of the target would be very high. Even with a limited speed just coming off the sharp turn, the limousine would be moving at almost right angles as seen from Oswald’s position. The angular speed would be, at 5 mph about 5.25 degrees per second and at even 3 mph, 3.15 degrees per second.
•   I think the boxes would be in the way of that shot. 60 feet up, the target about, what, 30 horizontal feet away. That would be shooting down at an angle of 63 degrees. I think the boxes would be in the way. Even with the boxes out of the way, I think it would require the upper portion of his body to be hanging out of the window. And he would be not nearly so will hidden if he just stays back a bit and waits a few more seconds.

In Max Holland's mocked-up, laser-measured reenactment of the shooting of that first shot at about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, ... the boxes were not in the way.

If you were the assassin up there at that window and ... 1) not wanting to shoot while the limo was still on Houston Street for fear of being spotted and shot while in the act of shooting, ... and ... 2) you knew there was a big oak tree partially obscuring Elm Street from your view, ... I think you'd be tempted to squeeze of a shot before the limo disappeared behind the tree, knowing that you'd probably be able to get off one or two more shots if, by some miracle, you missed on that "easy", five-miles-per-hour, reach-out-and-touch-somebody one.

-- MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 07:25:31 AM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2020, 05:59:00 AM »


Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2020, 04:15:13 PM »
"Moved it"? What... did they alter the visual record? Because the visual record supports what the Clark Panel concluded.

Reflecting the scalp to expose the EOP region requires a lot of effort, such as severing of attachments. None of that is mentioned in the autopsy report or their testimonies.

Finck thought there was (or there should have been in retrospect) a photo of the bared entry wound. But they only photographed the entry wound with ther scalp over it. They wanted to preserve the President's body as much as possible.



They stood by Humes' word that he felt some bump under the scalp he--it is my belief--mistook for the EOP. None of them saw the bared scalp wound relative to the bared EOP. In fact Humes measured the scalp wound from the skull's midline, a line not generally visible on the exterior of the occipital bone. The parietal bone, however, exhibits a prominent suture line along the skull's midline.

The skull had numerous fractures radiating from the skull in-shoot. Could have been a fracture edge that Humes mistook for the EOP "bump".

I believe they based it more so on what the lateral X-ray of the skull showed.

     

   "The position of this wound corresponds to the hole
     in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2.

    "On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole
     measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the
     outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm.
     on the internal surface can be seen in profile
     approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
     protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the
     hole is depressed."

Geeze. Even a non-doctor sitting at home in isolation during a pandemic, distracted by the protest coverage on TV, can easily find support for the WCR-LN head shot.

"Logical conclusion"? LOL

Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

Bottom line, the original autopsy doctors, you know the ones who held JFK's skull in their hands, found a through and through bullet hole

slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP. Low in the back of the skull.

The Clark Panel found a trail of metal particles across the top of JFK's skull. Indicating a bullet wound there. High on the skull at the

cowlick.

Evidence of at least 2 bullets striking JFK in the head.

Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2020, 08:06:16 PM »
Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

Bottom line, the original autopsy doctors, you know the ones who held JFK's skull in their hands, found a through and through bullet hole

slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP. Low in the back of the skull.

The Clark Panel found a trail of metal particles across the top of JFK's skull. Indicating a bullet wound there. High on the skull at the

cowlick.

Evidence of at least 2 bullets striking JFK in the head.

Thank you. Two shots to the head.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2020, 08:06:16 PM »


Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2020, 10:56:35 PM »
Thank you. Two shots to the head.

Okay, but only if you say so.

--  MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 12:17:51 AM by Thomas Graves »

Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2020, 04:58:49 PM »
Okay, but only if you say so.

--  MWT  ;)
The evidence "says so".
Including Mr West's survey.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2020, 04:58:49 PM »


Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2020, 11:43:05 PM »
The evidence "says so".
Including Mr West's survey.

As you "interpret" it, I'm sure.

--  MWT  ;)

Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2020, 12:14:19 AM »
As you "interpret" it, I'm sure.

--  MWT  ;)
Have you seen the survey?

Online Gerry Down

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2020, 12:18:26 AM »
I think i got my angles wrong in the opening post of this thread. The 17.5 degree angle refers to the SBT. The head shot was at 12 degrees.

What angle sideways did the headshot come in at? The SBT is 10 degrees (relative to the midline of the limo). What angle did the headshot come in at relative to the midline of the limo?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 02:54:54 AM by Gerry Down »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2020, 12:18:26 AM »