JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Tim Nickerson]

I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle.

That was not a finding of the FPP.

But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.

It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.



Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.

That is a poor diagram, to be sure. As you noted , it wrongly has Kennedy in a fully upright position. When in reality, he was slouched forward from between 11 and 18 degrees. Also, it has the vertical angle of trajectory at about 20 degrees. It does not account for the 3 degree slope of the street. They have the position of the entry wound about right but the exit wound is way too low.

[John Mytton]

You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted.

OMG, why the deception? The keystone theory has been thoroughly refuted and when I demonstrated the massive amount of parallax changes in the backyard photos you endorsed my evidence(see below), now you're back to square one and peddling your original BS?

Yes, of course, the camera changed positions for each picture.

Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.

JohnM

[Jerry Organ]

I take it this is going to be your fallback dodge every time I ask you why you have not addressed the scientific evidence developed by medical experts/scientists such as Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Ryan, Weatherly, Charnin, Costella, Chambers, etc., etc.?

Remember your ringing endorsement of "Dr. Gerald McKnight, a professor emeritus of history at Hood College in Maryland"? He supposedly backed up your "point that one of the nurses later stated that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie." How did that turn out?

The McAdams site has some revealing insights on your "expert" Gary Aguilar's "Back-of-the-Head" witness claims:

Witness		Aguilar		McAdams
Dr Marion Jenkins		skull wound rearward on the right side		So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's not sure which.
Dr James Carrico		Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath		As he did with Jenkins, Aguilar ignores the "right side" statement This from 7 HSCA 278. So it seems it was *above* the ear, extending "almost from the crown of the head."
Dr David Osborne		Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull"		But Aguilar does not mention -- perhaps because he's not aware of -- Osborne's interview with the HSCA. It's Record Number 180-10102-10415, Agency File Number 013623.    The document reports "In regard to the head wound Osborne said that there was no question that the bullet entered the back of the head and blew the top off of the head."    Why Aguilar would list so clear a "top of the head" witness as being a "back of the head" witness is puzzling.
Capt James Stover		Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull"		The interesting thing about this is the fact that Aguilar could classify a witness who quite clearly said "top of the head" as a "back of the head" witness. "Stover recalled seeing . . . a severe wound to the top of the head."
Dr Robert Grossman		He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput		So while Groden and Livingstone admit that Grossman remembered seeing two wounds, the "large defect in the parietal area above the right ear" is tossed down the Memory Hole. The wound that Grossman remembered in the occiput has become, in Groden and Livingstone's retelling, the "large" wound. [When Dr Clark showed Grossman the President's head, Grossman recalled]: "Then it was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited. Globe interview also has Grossman saying "I could have been wrong" about the smaller ("about one-and-a-quarter inches in diameter") occiput wound.
Dr Charles Baxter		[In] a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." [In testimony], that sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44)		Or Baxter has simply decided that "occipital" was wrong. Baxter [in testimony] then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off."
Dr Paul Peters		"...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect.		[At] the National Archives in 1988 to view the autopsy photos and x-rays for NOVA, he said: "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong."

"Dr" John Costella? LOL! He who thinks the sign posts are unnatural and fakery. Actually, it's all to do with the pin-cushioning effect.



The Stemmons Frwy sign itself had tilted a bit but the changes in tilt as the film panned are not suspicious.

McAdams' "analysis" does not even touch most of the relevant evidence. That is why I asked you to tell me where McAdams addresses the evidence mentioned in the list of questions that I posed to you, all of which you snipped and ducked.

Speaking of "ducking" and "dodging", we're waiting for you to answer this question:

    "What was the name of the nurse, and where can we read her statement on the matter?"

The question was in regards to your statement that: "one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie knot." Yes, you mentioned Henry Hurt ("That's because they were not bullet holes but slits made by the nurses who hurriedly cut off Kennedy's clothing, as one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt.") but his book merely says:

    "They are slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the
     President's necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed
     this, adding impressive credence to Weisberg's observation."

The footnote chiefly references Weisberg, not some "confirmation" made to Hurt personally.

How can anyone credibly discuss the autopsy materials without first explaining the hard scientific evidence that the white patch in the right-rear on the lateral skull x-rays is indisputably manmade? How can anyone dare to defend the lone-gunman fiction about the large head wound without addressing the fact that it has been firmly established that autopsy photo F8 shows considerable bone missing from the occiput?

When claims like that appear in a peer-reviewed article or are confirmed by a distinguished panel of forensic pathologists and photography experts, let us know.

As I've said before, it's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You don't realize--or don't care--that your claims have been turned into myths by a mountain of new research and new disclosures.

Sorry, but advances in 3D modeling and photo-analysis by competent people generally go the LN way.

And I again point out that this is not what Humes said in the autopsy report. If you admit the meaning of the medical terms he uses, he *did* provide a measurement for the rear entry hole in the skull--he did so by specifying that it was a corresponding wound to the wound in the scalp.

Medical definitions are not "semantics." (Well, maybe to you they are.) There is nothing semantical about the definition of "corresponding" that I quoted from a medical dictionary. It is straightforward. You just can't admit it because you are pathologically determined to cling to the myth that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet hit JFK in the back of the head, never mind that it behaved nothing like an FMJ bullet.

So your "evidence" that Humes measured the bone entry wound is your own interpretation of the word "corresponding"? Strangely like how Weisberg got it in his mind that a nurse and Dr. Carrico "confirmed" that scalpels were used to remove the President's clothing.

I’m guessing you are not aware that we now know that at the autopsy, even the autopsy doctors noted that the head bullet did not behave like an FMJ missile.

Here we go again with your repeating claims that have already been refuted, and that I have refuted in this forum. As I already documented for you, Frazier said the holes overlap and form a single bullet hole. He said this in plain English. I quoted his testimony to you.

So it was a bullet hole. Thanks.

So, now that we've reinvented the wheel because of your refusal to be honest, I will repeat the point that the fact that the holes overlap almost perfectly and form a single hole, the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in nearly perfect correspondence, and would have had to bunch over 2 inches, to produce a single hole that was at least 2 inches below the WC's back-wound location.

When I said that the coat and shirt holes overlapped and aligned with each other, you said this was “kooky.” Remember that? Then, after I quoted Frazier to you on this point, you back-peddled and claimed that you were only talking about my statement that the clothing bunching would have had to be millimeter-for-millimeter.

Your post of July 9 read:
    "JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate
     the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have
     bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat."

My response:
    "The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt
     are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky."

Your response:
     "I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly?"

My response:
    "I'm certainly unaware the holes in the President's jacket and shirt exist in
     "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Can you provide measurements
     to prove your statement? Or were you just trading in absolutes and hyperbole
     like Wecht and Trump?"

Every single researcher who has examined JFK’s coat and shirt at the National Archives has said that the two holes overlap and align almost perfectly, that they are only a fraction of faction of an inch from overlapping and aligning perfectly, just as Frazier explained to the WC.

But someone who claimed the shirt would "have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat" and "the coat and shirt holes line up exactly" would not be honestly stating the facts.

But you are the one who was way off, not I. I was much closer to the fact of the matter than you were. You initially denied that the two holes even aligned and overlapped. When I quoted Frazier to prove otherwise, you then announced that, oh, you were only talking about how closely the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in correspondence with each other.

The coat and jacket did bunch, about an inch, as seen in Croft and motorcade photos where Kennedy's right arm is as it is in the Zapruder film. An inch-high bunch with raise up the back of the clothing by two inches, as an inch-high bunch requires an inch of material on each side of it.

You are doing all of this ducking and dodging and evasion to avoid dealing with the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in almost perfect correspondence with each other, a fantastically far-fetched proposition.

Another month; a different forum and you'll be back to "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert".

Nope. Sorry. Go read Boswell’s ARRB testimony. He made it clear that they measured the defect and determined the amount of missing bone after they had reflected the scalp (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, pp. 63-65). Boswell pointed out that the 10 mm x 17 mm measurement was done on the scalp but that the 10 mm x 19 mm measurement was done “when the scalp is reflected” (p. 64).

Furthermore, when the ARRB asked Boswell if he still believed that the rear head entry wound was 15 mm x 6 mm and was 2.5 cm to the right and “slightly above” the EOP, he left no doubt that he did. Boswell spent considerable time talking about the EOP entry wound with the ARRB, and never once, not one single time, did he even hint that its size in the skull was any different than its size in the scalp, whereas he did specify this when it came to the large defect.

That could just as well mean Boswell had a skull measurement for the gaping wound and none for the entry wound.

I notice that you long ago snipped and have continued to ignore Dr. Finck’s report to Gen. Blumberg, where Finck, who was a fanatic about precision of language, likewise said that the scalp wound corresponded to the skull wound:

Finck, who actually was a forensic pathologist and had some experience with gunshot autopsies, would not have said the skull wound corresponded to the scalp wound if they had differed in size or shape.

Finck certainly believes the neck was transited and that the tie was nicked by a bullet that exited the collar. But you never mention that.

And are you ever going to explain what happened to the low/EOP fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw on the lateral skull x-rays at the autopsy? Under the fiercest and most skeptical questioning by the HSCA and the ARRB, they doggedly insisted that the only fragment trail they saw was the one they described in the autopsy report, even though no such trail now appears on the skull x-rays. Gee, where did it go? WC apologists have only two possible answers: (1) the autopsy doctors were so blitheringly incompetent that they “mistook” the EOP fragment trail for a fragment trail that was actually a whopping 4 inches higher in the lateral skull x-rays, or (2) they simply lied about the fragment trail and ignored the fragment trail now visible on the lateral skull x-rays.

LOL! Do you know what “anatomical position” means? Google it. This only makes your argument more ridiculous.

I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle. I have already showed you the HSCA FPP’s SBT diagram, which leans JFK far forward to make the “slightly upward” trajectory work. But Canning’s SBT trajectory diagram not only ignores this but has JFK sitting straight up and has the back wound above the throat wound and puts the exit point clearly below the throat! We both know you can see these things.[/size]

The forward-leaning drawing merely demonstrated Clyde Snow's concept that the bullet entered the body "upward" in  the anatomic-position sense. It wasn't used by Canning in his trajectory study. Canning started with a normal-position model and adjusted it to relate to the wounding-position seen in Croft and the Z190s.

But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.

It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.

Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.

You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted. The problem, which you have again ducked, is that there is no way in the world that the distance differences would be so tiny if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged. The distances would be far, far greater in every aspect/angle (yaw, pitch, and roll angles).

We are still waiting for some WC apologist to do a reenactment where they use an Imperial Reflex camera, take three photos, and hand the camera back and forth between each exposure, and produce photos that show the same incredibly tiny distances between background objects. I have already quoted the HSCA PEP’s own parallax measurements on those amazingly tiny differences in two other replies.

I already answered this nonsense. Allow me to quote part of what I wrote the last time you posted these arguments:

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that the Backyard cluster is over 200% divergent from the Dallas Arrest cluster in both distance and shape. You keep dancing around this central fact. And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.

So you really think Oswald's features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos.

And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.

One of the control photos. Head detail sharp.

Backyard Photos. Head detail not as sharp.

In the backyard Photos, the lower chin features lack the definition of the arrest photos, the nasal septum/upper lip juncture appears to be in shade, and where does one figure out where the ear lobes begin? Would you have preferred the HSCA just guessed about that?

You must be kidding. The "mean distance"?! Do you know how to read a graph? Do you not see the numbers on each line of the graph? Look at the graph again and you should be able to discern these numbers:

Dallas Arrest: 0 shape distance, 0 size distance
Marine: 0.5 shape distance, 0.020/0.025 size distance
New Orleans: 1.6 shape distance, 0.06/0.07 size distance
Russia: 0.9 shape distance, 0.19 size distance
Backyard: 1.75/1.8 shape distance, 0.31/0.32 size distance

Now, the closest of the Oswald clusters to the Backyard cluster is the New Orleans cluster, but even it diverges by 9% in shape distance and by 250% in size distance from the Backyard cluster.

Some features of Oswald in the Backyard Photos are out a whomping 250%. Are the ears twice as large as in other photos? Maybe they're Obama Ears!

If the backyard figure's face Penrose measurements were reasonably similar to those of the face seen in the Dallas arrest photos, you would not have these huge variations. And the variations would be even greater if the measurements had included those of the chin, nose, and ear lobes.

I imagine they would be since those starting-points are not as clearly defined as the arrest photos.

Now, to post this cherry-picked nonsense, you either don't grasp the basics about the Penrose analysis or you are hoping that our readers here are so gullible and math challenged that they will ignore the plainly obvious huge divergences seen on the graph and will somehow instead be impressed with your three cherry-picked sets of measurements.

LOL! Right. . . .  Yeah. . . .  And it was just a whopping, cosmic, incredible coincidence that the only three measurements that were omitted from the Penrose analysis were those of the same three areas that critics and photographic experts have identified as problematic: the chin width, the nose length, and the lobe length! I'd be willing to bet good money that even the dumbest Southern "cracker" who looked at the backyard photos would have enough basic intelligence to see that Snow's excuse is laughable.

Do tell me why they could not have gotten these measurements from 133-A-DeM or from 133-A-Stovall or from 133-C. 133-C is an 8 x 10 print. 133-A-Stovall is a 5 x 8 print and has better resolution than 133-A or 133-B. Let's see you stammer out some ridiculous excuse for why the nose, chin, and ear lobes are not clear enough in those photos to get those measurements. You simply must be kidding.

Backyard Photos fall short of level of detail in the arrest photos.

No article text readable.

The clearest print I could find. Do you have one better. BTW, you claimed that the newsprint (article text) could be read:

    "133-A-DeM is so high quality that you can read
     the print on the newspaper in the figure's hand."

And, again, just imagine how much greater the divergence between the Dallas Arrest cluster and the Backyard cluster would have been if those measurements had been included.

You've already given Backyard Oswald a Karl Malden nose, Marty Feldman eyes and Mr. Spock Ears.

Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.

JohnM

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

OMG, why the deception? The keystone theory has been thoroughly refuted and when I demonstrated the massive amount of parallax changes in the backyard photos you endorsed my evidence(see below), now you're back to square one and peddling your original BS?

What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here. 

Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.

"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:

The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter

b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm

The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:

Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)

Here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:

133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11

Again, these are millimeters.

Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.

This is goofball posturing. You really should avoid such posturing when you simultaneously show yourself to be comically ignorant of the facts.

On what planet is 1.1 mm, the largest variation in the horizontal parallax measurements, a "massive" change? Are you kidding? Are you some high schooler using your parent's computer in the basement? 1.1 mm, just FYI, is markedly smaller than 1/16th of an inch, and that was the largest horizontal change! Do you know what a millimeter is?

In the vertical parallax measurements, the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). Do you know how tiny a change 0.15 mm is? 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. Do you know basic math well enough to understand just how incredibly tiny that difference is? This might help you out: 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference (0.15 mm/0.0059 inches) that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch.

If you just cannot grasp the basic math here, go ask your parents to explain to you why 0.15 mm is an extremely tiny, tiny, tiny difference.

I hate to be so harsh, but you get on here and spew all this rhetoric while at the same time you make it obvious for all to see that you are clueless about even the basic facts. Maybe on your planet a 1.1 mm horizontal change and a 0.15 mm vertical change are "massive changes," but not down here on Earth.

The only "nutty theory" here is your absurd theory that a top-view handheld camera with a lever instead of a button, and handed back and forth between exposures, could produce photos that contain differences between their background objects that are so tiny that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and that were found to range from only 0.1 mm to 1.1 mm.

Finally, regarding Jerry Organ's labored denial that the rear entry wound in the skull was 6.0 mm, I will just note that even the WC did not stoop to this level of denial and dishonesty. The WC admitted that the skull wound was 6.0 mm, since the autopsy report makes this clear to everyone except a tiny band of WC apologists, and the commission theorized that the skull hole "recoiled" to 6.0 mm after being 6.5 mm or larger when made:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by
the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

And notice that the commission said that this recoil "shrinks" the hole. The past tense of "shrinks" is "shrunk." I mention this because Jerry Organ strongly protested my use of the verb "shrunk" in reference to the alleged recoil of the skull.





 

[Jerry Organ]

What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here. 

Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.

"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:

The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter

b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm

The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:

Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)

Here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:

133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11

Again, these are millimeters.

This is goofball posturing. You really should avoid such posturing when you simultaneously show yourself to be comically ignorant of the facts.

On what planet is 1.1 mm, the largest variation in the horizontal parallax measurements, a "massive" change? Are you kidding? Are you some high schooler using your parent's computer in the basement? 1.1 mm, just FYI, is markedly smaller than 1/16th of an inch, and that was the largest horizontal change! Do you know what a millimeter is?

In the vertical parallax measurements, the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). Do you know how tiny a change 0.15 mm is? 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. Do you know basic math well enough to understand just how incredibly tiny that difference is? This might help you out: 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference (0.15 mm/0.0059 inches) that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch.

If you just cannot grasp the basic math here, go ask your parents to explain to you why 0.15 mm is an extremely tiny, tiny, tiny difference.

I hate to be so harsh, but you get on here and spew all this rhetoric while at the same time you make it obvious for all to see that you are clueless about even the basic facts. Maybe on your planet a 1.1 mm horizontal change and a 0.15 mm vertical change are "massive changes," but not down here on Earth.

The only "nutty theory" here is your absurd theory that a top-view handheld camera with a lever instead of a button, and handed back and forth between exposures, could produce photos that contain differences between their background objects that are so tiny that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and that were found to range from only 0.1 mm to 1.1 mm.

You really think the pickets in these three photographs should have spread apart by centimeters between exposes? That the photographer's feet shifted two-or-three feet laterally between poses?

And you don't mention how the changes are consistent with how each photo was taken.

• In all cases, more of the background is shown to the right and less to the left on CE 133-B as compared to CE 133-A. Since the shadow analysis indicated that CE 133-B was taken before CE 133-A, the parallax indicates that the camera was moved slightly to the left between these two exposures.
• Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures.
• Between the first and second pickets from the left gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member, a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the background.

So now we'll be hearing that the "forgers" took all that into account.

Finally, regarding Jerry Organ's labored denial that the rear entry wound in the skull was 6.0 mm, I will just note that even the WC did not stoop to this level of denial and dishonesty. The WC admitted that the skull wound was 6.0 mm, since the autopsy report makes this clear to everyone except a tiny band of WC apologists, and the commission theorized that the skull hole "recoiled" to 6.0 mm after being 6.5 mm or larger when made:

The Commission was evidently referring to the head when they used the word "skull". Because their own footnote references Humes testimony about the scalp wound measurements.

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by
the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

And notice that the commission said that this recoil "shrinks" the hole. The past tense of "shrinks" is "shrunk." I mention this because Jerry Organ strongly protested my use of the verb "shrunk" in reference to the alleged recoil of the skull.

Little Donald Trump won't let nothing go and has to have the largest font size in the room. The difference is that the Commission provided the context of elastic recoil (and for skin if we go by their footnote). Which means a temporary enlargement that settles naturally to a slightly-smaller size. Compare with your scoffing tweet:

    "The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk."

[Bill Chapman]

Note the ad-Homs liberally sprinkled on yet another MTG word salad.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You really think the pickets in these three photographs should have spread apart by centimeters between exposes? That the photographer's feet shifted two-or-three feet laterally between poses?

Do you just not understand the basic science here? Do you not grasp the problem? Or are you just throwing mud into the air and hoping some of it will seem credible? You and Mytton either simply do not grasp the problem or you are pretending the problem does not exist and making arguments that have nothing to do with the problem.

All the ducking and dodging in the world will not explain how a top-view handheld camera that had a lever instead of a button, and that was supposedly passed back and forth between exposures, could have produced three photos with backgrounds so similar that the differences between the objects in the backgrounds are so small that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and were found to be so incredibly tiny as to range between 0.1 mm and 1.1 mm. You keep dancing around this point.

And you don't mention how the changes are consistent with how each photo was taken.

• In all cases, more of the background is shown to the right and less to the left on CE 133-B as compared to CE 133-A. Since the shadow analysis indicated that CE 133-B was taken before CE 133-A, the parallax indicates that the camera was moved slightly to the left between these two exposures.

LOL! This is what happens when you quote stuff without understanding the science behind it (or when you are unwilling to address the problem). The whole point is that the camera would have moved far, far, far more than "slightly to the left" if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged.

The parallax measurements show that the camera barely moved to the left at all between those two exposures, so little, so slightly, in fact, that the largest variation was only 1.1 mm in one of the horizontal parallax measurements. Nope, not on this planet.

• Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures.

More comedy. Again, the point is that the camera should have moved far, far, far more than the parallax measurements indicate it did, assuming, of course, that the photos were taken as alleged.

The camera was moved so slightly downward that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. To grasp how tiny a change this is, consider that 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Not on this planet.
 

Between the first and second pickets from the left gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member, a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the background.

This is your same bumbling, bogus argument, only this time regarding the vertical movement. Yes, the camera was moved downward, and the downward movement was impossibly slight. The camera was moved downward so slightly that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. Not on this planet.

As I have suggested before, why don't you WC apologists pool your money and perform a simple, inexpensive reenactment with the same model Imperial Reflex camera, or with a reasonably similar camera, and prove that someone taking three photos with such a camera and handing it back and forth between exposures could take photos that would contain such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects?

So now we'll be hearing that the "forgers" took all that into account.

LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. What "all that"? All you have done is repeat facts that prove the very point I've been making.

The forgers would not have needed to take "all that" into account because the "all that" was the result of using the same background and only slightly keystoning it to try to make it less obvious that they used the same background! The "all that" simply reinforces the fact that the parallax measurements prove that the camera moved impossibly tiny amounts between exposures. If you have an explanation for these impossibly small variations, let's see it.

The Commission was evidently referring to the head when they used the word "skull". Because their own footnote references Humes testimony about the scalp wound measurements.

Uh, no, the commission said "the skull," not "the scalp." I'm pretty sure they knew the difference. Yes, the footnote references Humes' testimony, in which, at one point, Humes said the same thing:

"So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area." (2 H 352)

What do you not understand about this plain English? Oh, that's right: You still won't admit that in medical terms "corresponding" means "match," "fit," "agree with." When you acknowledge this definition, Humes was plainly saying that when they reflected the scalp, they could see that the wound in the skull matched the wound in the scalp, which was 6 mm wide.

So, "apparently," the author of this section of the report chose to rely on the autopsy report and on Humes's statement quoted above, and not on Humes's attempt to create wiggle room about the size of the wound in the skull. It is revealing that you, instead, choose to ignore the autopsy report and to ignore Humes's 2 H 352 statement, and instead rely solely on his waffling attempt to create wiggle room for the size of the skull wound.

Little Donald Trump won't let nothing go and has to have the largest font size in the room. The difference is that the Commission provided the context of elastic recoil (and for skin if we go by their footnote). Which means a temporary enlargement that settles naturally to a slightly-smaller size. Compare with your scoffing tweet:

    "The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk."

But that is exactly what the WC said--the report even used the verb "shrinks." Shall we read it yet again?:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

So the WC said that when a bullet strikes skull bone, the supposed "elastic recoil" of the skull "SHRINKS" the hole after the bullet goes through it so that the hole is smaller than the diameter of the bullet.

You do realize that "shrunk" is the past tense of "shrink," right?

Why don't you look up the verb "to shrink" while you're looking up the verbs "infer" and "imply," because you seem to have a problem with those verbs too. Or, maybe find some question or statement in the WC records uttered by "Mr. SPECTOR" that supports your twisting of language because you don't like what the language says. [/list]

[Jerry Organ]

Do you just not understand the basic science here? Do you not grasp the problem? Or are you just throwing mud into the air and hoping some of it will seem credible? You and Mytton either simply do not grasp the problem or you are pretending the problem does not exist and making arguments that have nothing to do with the problem.

All the ducking and dodging in the world will not explain how a top-view handheld camera that had a lever instead of a button, and that was supposedly passed back and forth between exposures, could have produced three photos with backgrounds so similar that the differences between the objects in the backgrounds are so small that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and were found to be so incredibly tiny as to range between 0.1 mm and 1.1 mm. You keep dancing around this point.

LOL! This is what happens when you quote stuff without understanding the science behind it (or when you are unwilling to address the problem). The whole point is that the camera would have moved far, far, far more than "slightly to the left" if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged.

The parallax measurements show that the camera barely moved to the left at all between those two exposures, so little, so slightly, in fact, that the largest variation was only 1.1 mm in one of the horizontal parallax measurements. Nope, not on this planet.

More comedy. Again, the point is that the camera should have moved far, far, far more than the parallax measurements indicate it did, assuming, of course, that the photos were taken as alleged.

The camera was moved so slightly downward that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. To grasp how tiny a change this is, consider that 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Not on this planet.

This is your same bumbling, bogus argument, only this time regarding the vertical movement. Yes, the camera was moved downward, and the downward movement was impossibly slight. The camera was moved downward so slightly that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. Not on this planet.

You realize the HSCA were not talking about the parallax differences in terms of life-scale?

As I have suggested before, why don't you WC apologists pool your money and perform a simple, inexpensive reenactment with the same model Imperial Reflex camera, or with a reasonably similar camera, and prove that someone taking three photos with such a camera and handing it back and forth between exposures could take photos that would contain such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects?

     "such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects"

Yep. It appears you don't.

LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. What "all that"? All you have done is repeat facts that prove the very point I've been making.

The forgers would not have needed to take "all that" into account because the "all that" was the result of using the same background and only slightly keystoning it to try to make it less obvious that they used the same background! The "all that" simply reinforces the fact that the parallax measurements prove that the camera moved impossibly tiny amounts between exposures. If you have an explanation for these impossibly small variations, let's see it.

This gets better. The "forgers" can morph variations in each background so accurately they're undetectable as being fraudulently done years later though expert examination including stereo viewing. In addition, the "forgers" took the "same background" and changed the shadows on each background object in each photograph, such that they too are totally consistent with a genuine photograph.

Uh, no, the commission said "the skull," not "the scalp." I'm pretty sure they knew the difference. Yes, the footnote references Humes' testimony, in which, at one point, Humes said the same thing:

"So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area." (2 H 352)

What do you not understand about this plain English? Oh, that's right: You still won't admit that in medical terms "corresponding" means "match," "fit," "agree with." When you acknowledge this definition, Humes was plainly saying that when they reflected the scalp, they could see that the wound in the skull matched the wound in the scalp, which was 6 mm wide.

Then why didn't Humes simply say he had measurements for the skull entry wound?

    "The size of the defect in the scalp, caused by a projectile could vary from
     missile to missile because of elastic recoil and so forth of the tissues.
     However, the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this case,
     the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm., so I would feel
     that that would be the absolute upper limit of the size of this missile, sir."

    "This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic
     recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
     this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than the caliber of the
     missile that traversed it."

So, "apparently," the author of this section of the report chose to rely on the autopsy report and on Humes's statement quoted above, and not on Humes's attempt to create wiggle room about the size of the wound in the skull. It is revealing that you, instead, choose to ignore the autopsy report and to ignore Humes's 2 H 352 statement, and instead rely solely on his waffling attempt to create wiggle room for the size of the skull wound.

But that is exactly what the WC said--the report even used the verb "shrinks." Shall we read it yet again?:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

So the WC said that when a bullet strikes skull bone, the supposed "elastic recoil" of the skull "SHRINKS" the hole after the bullet goes through it so that the hole is smaller than the diameter of the bullet.

You do realize that "shrunk" is the past tense of "shrink," right?

Why don't you look up the verb "to shrink" while you're looking up the verbs "infer" and "imply," because you seem to have a problem with those verbs too. Or, maybe find some question or statement in the WC records uttered by "Mr. SPECTOR" that supports your twisting of language because you don't like what the language says.

Obsessive. Like Trump saying he didn't say "Tim Apple": "I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time & words".