In article <firstname.lastname@example.org
>, David Von
First, what about my question? I asked you, if, just for argument's sake, there
*****WAS*** such a wound, do you think HB&F (and, perhaps a paranoid superior or
two) would have reported its nature (size/location, etc.) precisely and
unambiguously and expect for one minute that the majority of the thousands of
bonafide and arm-chair forensic experts across the nation would buy the notion
that such a wound was caused by a shot from the rear?
>>>>"Do you really think there was a massive wound on the back of the head as in the
David, I know this doesn't mean shit to you, but you disappoint me. I told you
F8 was practically the Rosetta Stone for figuring out this BOH wound
issue...and, after you tell me you don't have a clue what's being shown in that
photo and I offer to send you a very user-friendly, color coded graphic that
illustrates what's being shown in F8, you don't even have the courtesy or the
willingness to accept my offer. Thus, like all the other "No-BOH wound, and
cowlick entry confused theorists, you don't bother to understand and factor into
your conclusions a key piece of ev. re. this/these issues.
I hope you just aren't going with the flow, i.e. VB, Posner, and the Clark/HSCA
panels. But, if you are, to each his own.
How do you know that? Look at the bleeping x-rays...can't you see a piece of
bone that is several cm tall with its lower margin extending several cm to JFK's
right of the EOP? Now, if you'd understand F8, the lower margin of that piece
matches the contour of the edge of the skull extending to the right from the
entry. That piece, among others, fell out when they reflected the scalp....IOW,
THEY DIDN'T HIT HIS BOH WITH A F__________ MALLET TO FRAGMENT IT!!!!
Now if you think that it's a greater leap to conclude that there could have been
a tear in the rear scalp (PRESUMEABLY BEING CAUSED BY THE SAME FORCE THAT
FRAGMENTED THE BOH) by the time JFK arrived at Parkland....thereby exposing his
brain...than to conclude that 20+ Parkland witnesses as well as C. Hill,
Ebersole, and C. Boyers, were wrong or lying (the HSCA's language, BTW) about
what they saw, then I've come to another conclusion. And that is we're wasting
each other's time and that of the moderators discussing this issue.
>>>> "BTW, that was NOT drawn by McClelland." <<<
>But it was based on McClelland's supposed observations, correct? (The
>actual "artist" notwithstanding.)