South Knoll Shooter/Where The Winds Blow

[David C]

I would believe in the South Knoll shooters if I could see the XRays used to determine this.

[Cutty]

I would believe in the South Knoll shooters if I could see the XRays used to determine this.

Hi David,

I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you on a timely basis to address your question about fractures when I previously saw it. I know Sherry has been busy but hoped she might have been here already to do it herself. She has always confirmed to me that I "have it correct" when I run things by her to make sure I do so I'll try to help for now.

I believe you mentioned lateral fractures but I would have to say that the more defining factor determining source direction found in x-rays of ballistic entrance wounds to the skull would be "radial" or "radiating" fractures. Beveling was previously thought to contribute to this conclusion but has since been determined to be unreliable. That now established, the only x-rays we have to study are from the autopsy, of course. You may think that if the autopsy results are questionable in the first place, then the results of modern study of them might be tainted. Actually, not necessarily so for every piece of evidence as we have to remember that 50 years ago forensic science wasn't advanced sufficiently enough yet to determine what could be recognized as evidence in the first place. Let me try to explain how the most profound evidence, IMO, and starting point for determining the trajectory for the fatal head shot was always present in Z312 - Z313 yet not understood until decades later.

The "mist" that Bill Newman and other eyewitnesses saw briefly in front of the president's head before it "disappeared" is called back spatter. It is a fine mist of expelled blood that makes its way along the circumference of the missle as it is penetrating the skull and exits from the entrance wound in a conical shape back toward the shooter. It is an impossibility for the origin of the shot to have come from anywhere outside the range determined by the cone. Back in the day they had no knowledge of such a thing and as time went on the suggestion that the phenomenon was evidence of tampering with the Z film became one explanation. At the time, I'm thinking, investigators probably thought they had evidence of a shot from behind. The initial slight forward motion of the skull was also thought to be evidence of a shot from the rear but up to date science proves that the skull moves slightly toward the missle upon entry.  Today we understand that we are fortunate to have Z312 - Z313 which clearly exhibits back spatter, and not only confirms that one and only one head shot came from a range within the south knoll, but also validates the authenticity of at least Z312 - Z313 and corroborates previously discounted eyewitness testimony on the ground close to the limo.

Similarly, the now understood evidence seen in the autopsy x-rays, particularly the "radial fractures," helps to corroborate the back spatter evidence. Obviously, any effort to obfuscate evidence seen in the x-rays could not include hiding something nobody knew existed at the time. So, even though we may be suspect of the official findings I believe we are again lucky to have something in there that nobody anticipated could be discovered by future advacements in forensic science.

I hope this helps. I will go back over the autopsy evidence so we may discuss this in more detail in the near future if you like. My input in this post has been more concerned with the evidence regarding the entrance wound and the determined source for the shot. The continuing change in condition of the missle,  its path within the skull,  the resulting blowout at the back and the transfer of kinetic energy causing the "back and to the left" motion are subjects for discussing the events subsequent to the initial impact.

Great to have you here, David. Your contributions are much appreciated!

Karl   

 

[Mitch C.]

Cutty Said:

"The "mist" that Bill Newman and other eyewitnesses saw briefly in front of the president's head before it "disappeared" is called back spatter. It is a fine mist of expelled blood that makes its way along the circumference of the missle as it is penetrating the skull and exits from the entrance wound in a conical shape back toward the shooter. It is an impossibility for the origin of the shot to have come from anywhere outside the range determined by the cone."

Just to play devil's advocate; there is an argument that the prevailing winds that afternoon were strong enough to reverse the direction of the mist back toward the shooter; this combined with the forward movement of the limo contributes to the false assumption that the shot originated somewhere from the front as opposed to the Book Depository.

I'm not buying it mind you; but that is a common response to the mist direction argument by LN'ers. Thoughts?

[Kelly]

Mitch, it so good to see you on here where you belong! You are right in tune with Sherry Fiester and her back splatter theory. I say theory, but it`s understood by my opinion that this is what the Zapruder frame 313 shows.

[Cutty]

Hi Mitch!! How great it is to have you back in the fold as your contributions are always enjoyed and appreciated.

There has been much about back spatter & the head shot trajectory discussed before we made this recent move and Sherry has answered many questions in terms we can all understand yet quite comprehensively. As a matter of fact, the book is not a tedious read at all while referring to countless lab trials by the top experts in the field over pretty much 3 decades which have rendered her premise true scientific fact rather than theory. She has been recieved well in the research community and has done many radio interviews and appearances with no apparent dissenting peers in her field. She is one of the formost court certified experts in the field but in her absence, I think I can give you a perspective that is derived from "what I believe" based on the understanding of how forensic/ballistic science has caught up to the case. I will go over to the archives and review much that has been discussed since the beginning of March but for now I'll address this:

"Just to play devil's advocate; there is an argument that the prevailing winds that afternoon were strong enough to reverse the direction of the mist back toward the shooter; this combined with the forward movement of the limo contributes to the false assumption that the shot originated somewhere from the front as opposed to the Book Depository.


I'm not buying it mind you; but that is a common response to the mist direction argument by LN'ers. Thoughts?"

This is good to play devil's advocate, Mitch, I know Sherry loves to address these types of querries and I look forward to her contribution to the discussion. I'll start with the prevailing winds and will say that I agree they were strong that day and actually "believe" a gust was responsible for Gov. Connally's "lapel flap" and not the "single bullet" as I once challenged Robert Harris on. When I pointed out that the exit hole in his jacket was way below any possible proximity to the lapel to be able to brush it aside, as was Harris' contention, he then suggested that the jacket "puffed" out as the bullet went through and as it "snapped" back, the lapel flew out from this motion!!!! Then, after pulling that one out of his arse he asks, "does that do it for ya?" Look, as I've told members before, I'm only a lowly engineer but that doesn't do it for me!

Now here's where I think it's really not to hard to understand that some of the suggestions that followed seem actually totally inconsistant with understanding even some simple laws of physics. I would appreciate, and know that I can speak for Sherry here also, if anybody could cite any statements of this challenging nature as I know she is always at the ready and eager to discuss it. Lets see if the wind and or limo motion are supporting those LN arguments.

Firstly, if you suggest that the wind "reversed" the direction back towrd the shooter, then where are you saying that the blood was emitted from in the first place? And which shooter?!! Of course LN's have always wanted the exit wound to be to be where the entrance wound actually was as evidenced by Z312 - Z313. The blood traveling in that direction (toward the underpass) would be what they thought made their argument for an exit wound in the first place, no? Don't forget that back in the day NOBODY EVEN KNEW WHAT BACK SPATTER WAS AND THAT IT IS EMITTED FROM THE ENTRANCE WOUND.

In complete 180 degree contrast to that assertion that the limo's motion could contribute to a false assumtion of a frontal shot, I would suggest that it is just the opposite because the limo's forward motion would be leaving the mist behind, not dragging it along. We had a similar discussion on a previous forum about the hairpin turn at Houston & Elm. Remember Bob's premise that the president's motions were more in response to ballistic activity on his right that threw up chips or something that caused him to pull his hand back & move to his left? Some folks were saying that the hairpin turn to the left caused that motion to the left. Regardless of what activity actually occurred at that point, just the opposite would happen in a turn of such an acute angle to the left and the centrifugal force would naturally cause him to lean right followed by a lean left as the limo steered back to staighten out. This is what seems to have actually happened considering what we can see and, of course we can never be sure of which of the president's motions were voluntary.

I'm glad you aren't buying it, Mitch, but I do understand that some folks may come along and try dispute the progress that has been made. I just haven't seen any. I have to wonder what my buddy Bill Brown would say after reading "Enemy Of The Truth." I wonder if he would have an open enough mind to read it in the first place. What matters more, I suppose, is that among those of us who agree that the basic question of conspircy is settled, at least in our hearts & minds, we find a way to get the hard scientific evidence that proves it written into the oficial record. I "believe" that this new understanding of the evidence is "essential" in finally confirming conspiracy, which I hope helps us all to continue to concentrate our efforts to confirm the other aspects of the case which we "believe."

[Mitch C.]

Excellent response. ^ I need to read "Enemy of the Truth". It's good to be back among you folks.

[Kelly]

Welcome Mitch. You`re back home now where you belong

[TLR]

Just for the record, the wind was blowing from the west at the time of the assassination, though I think Posner claims it was blowing from the north. Look at the bottoms of Jean and Mary's coats.

[David C]

Radial fractures, got it.

But,

What xrays are we looking at.

I agree with the concept, just want to understand the basis.

[Cutty]

Thank you, David, for advancing the discussion as we, together, study the new discoveries brought on by up-to-date forensic science. I'll try my best to explain ...........

The autopsy x-rays are all we have. If you remember, from Enemy Of The Truth, after the bullet had cleared the entrance wound and continued to traverse the cranium it created a cavity. This, subsequently produced a  building pressure resulting in the giving way of sections of the skull at the weakpoints where they are joined, hence, the "flapping piece of scull" we see in Zapruder and the "blow out" at the back of the head observed by eywitnesses.

I believe the fact that pieces of skull were missing contributed to the inability, at the time, to see the true location of the entry wound in the x-ray. Through modern understanding of the ballistic/forensic evidence we can now identify radial fracturing (unknown in 1963) in the upper right front quadrant of the skull which is associated with an entrance wound. Obviously, back in 1963 they had no idea that they were releasing autopsy x-rays that contained evidence which would not be proven to exist until decades later.

UPDATE: View autopsy x-ray and photographic evidence here: http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html

[David C]

So, the photos shown on the Lancer site are the photo's Sherry is referring to.

Please understand, for the average Joe like me, I dont have the slightest idea as to what I am looking at, the X-ray picture I looked at suggest that the whole front right eye socket is gone,

Would help to map it out with pointers,etc explaining what we are looking at.

Only thing I every got a PhD in was "beer drinking"