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

[Michael Carney]

“This is where we disagree. All but one of these items of evidence fits very well with a frontal-gunman scenario. I agree that the SS was deeply involved in cover-up activity, but I don't think it had anything to do with Hickey. “

“I see no credible evidence that Hickey fired his gun. Kennedy loyalist Dave Powers was in Hickey's car, and Powers said there was no way he could not have heard Hickey's rifle fire. In fact, none of the occupants in Hickey's car showed any reaction that would be consistent with having just heard an AR-15 fire from their car. I have fired several AR-15s--they are very loud.

Hole in the back of the head, not frontal.  Explosive nature of JFK’s head, either direction.  Hinkleys behavior after and the cover up, why would the SS cover anything up if they didn’t do anything, that makes no sense.  Smoke smelled in the motorcade, could not have come from forward because the shot would have come from the grassy knoll and the wind direction would not support that.
 
Two witnesses saw Hickey with the AR 15 and one said he had thought Hinkley had fired it and both of these witnesses were SS Agents.  There were more witnesses that saw Hinkley with the AR 15, one was on the overpass and he thought Hinkley fired it.
A  5.65 mm round came from behind and  based on Donahue’s study it came from Hinkley’s direction. Hinkley was holding the AR 15.

Powers was running towards JFK’s limo and was grabbing on to the handrail on the back of the limo at the time of the head shot. So he was in no position to witness the shot.

I have fired the M16 also and with the flash suppressor on them they are about a third of the noise level as an M14, granted my memory going back over fifty years is not that sharp but I do remember when I first fired the M16 after months of training with an M14. They are so different in the noise level.

So based on all of this I am saying that Files and Hinkley fired frangible rounds at the same time and probably added to the intensity of the head "explosion" and the jerking backward of the head.

[Michael T. Griffith]

If the Commission had used the word "shrunk", you might have a point. But as usual you don't.

They not only used the word "recoil" but also a citation to Humes' testimony. That's where we find out that Humes is actually taking about the skin having elastic recoil, not the bone of the skull. And that's why Bugliosi said it appeared to him to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."

Can you admit anything? Ever? If something "recoils" back to a configuration that is smaller than it was before the recoil occurred, that something has "shrunk." When you are talking about a skull hole that decreases in diameter because of an alleged "recoiling," it is perfectly valid to use the verb "shrunk" when referring to the result of that alleged recoil action. But, like I said, I'd be happy to acknowledge that the WC used the verb "recoil."

Now show us where Humes measured the entry wound on the skull itself.

That's nice. But Humes didn't measure the skull wound. He saw it briefly after reflection and from underneath; no rulers involved.

What?! "Saw it briefly"?! You have no clue what you're talking about. The occipital entry wound was the subject of considerable discussion at the autopsy because a small part of it was contained in a piece of missing bone that arrived later during the autopsy. I covered this in a previous reply.

Anyway, if Humes, Boswell, and Finck had not been certain that the skull wound was the same size as the scalp wound, they could not properly have used the term "corresponding wound" in the autopsy report. That verbiage has specific meaning in forensic language. If Wound A is a different size than Wound B, you would not say that Wound A was a "corresponding wound" to Wound B, and vice versa.

If Humes had measured the entry wound on bare bone,

Now why in the world would he not have measured the entry hole in the skull?! Why would he have ignored such a basic forensic procedure? Since he measured the large defect in the skull, why would he not have measured the entry hole on the skull?

And if, for some inexplicable reason, he did not measure the entry hole in the skull, then he had no basis for saying that the wound was a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound.

why did he guess at the size of it based on the size of the scalp wound:

    "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"

Humes was covering his backside. Read the question to which Humes was responding. He realized that the 6 mm entry wound was a problem because it was allegedly caused by a 6.5 mm bullet.

If Humes had been questioned about this by a competent defense attorney in a trial, he would not have been able to get away with his lame response. The attorney would have asked (1) why the autopsy report neither states nor suggests any doubt about the size of the skull wound, (2) why Finck's report on the autopsy says the occipital entry wound was a "corresponding" wound to the 15 x 6 mm wound in the scalp, and (3) why Humes would have used the phrase "corresponding wound" if there had been any doubt that the two wounds were not both 15 x 6 mm.

Near as I can tell, the two holes "corresponded" in their placement through a brief visual observation. Only the scalp wound was measured. You really think they should have checked the dimensions of a skull entry hole that was directly beneath a scalp entry hole?

Uh, YEAH, that's a basic forensic procedure. You don't just go by the size of the scalp wound, since a scalp wound can differ from the wound beneath it on the skull. Again, why would the doctors have measured the large defect on the skull but not have measured the rear entry hole on the skull? That makes no sense.

Again, in medical-legal/forensic terms, "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding).  If the skull hole had not been 15 x 6 mm, then it would not have "agreed with, matched, or fit" the scalp wound, and Humes could not have referred to it as a "corresponding wound."

Just substitute the word "skull" with "scalp" and it'll then relate to the passage's own Humes citation, his only measurement of the entry wound, skin elasticity, and why Bugliosi thought it was a typo or loose wording.

Really? Too bad Bugliosi didn't explain why the autopsy doctors measured the large defect on the skull and didn't just use the defect's measurement on the scalp. Gee, why would they have done that and not have measured the entry hole in the occipital bone? Why?

I don't see any inference. The paragraph is talking about beveling.

Huh? Did you mean "implication"? I said that readers were left to infer that it was not strange for the entry hole to be smaller than the bullet's diameter. Do you understand the difference between "imply" and "infer." The writer implies, and reader infers.

He's full of crap. It can hardly be "natural elasticity of skin" if a 6.5mm bullet is--in Mclaren's world--supposed to make a scalp wound 7mm wide. Furthermore, elasticity means a 5.56mm bullet ought to leave a 5mm wide hole in the scalp. McLaren must be using Trump Mathematics.

What are you talking about? You might want to go back a re-read McLaren's statement. Did you really not grasp McLaren's straightforward point?

Does McLaren's book have a reference for: "The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width"? Because all I have is Humes' measurement of the scalp wound.

Yeah, the reference is the autopsy report, which says the skull wound was a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound. We also have Finck's report on the autopsy:

The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone. (p. 1)

Finck was fanatical about precision of language. He would not have used the phrase "corresponding to this lesion" to refer to the entry hole in the occiput if the skull hole had not been the same size as the scalp hole.

Humes thought the skull wound probably was a little bigger ("approximately 6 to 7 mm") in width than the scalp wound measurement.

That is not what he said in the autopsy report. He gave no indication whatsoever that there was any difference in size between the scalp wound and the skull wound. Finck gave no such indication either in his report on the autopsy.

It can't be 6mm because that would be the same, not bigger. So now we're easily getting to 6.5 to 7mm for the skull wound.

You mean it "can't be 6 mm" because it destroys your house-of-cards case. You mean it can't be 6 mm because that would prove that the bullet was a 5.56 mm bullet, which was a more common size of ammo and would have been a better choice of ammo. But, nope, you can't have that.

[John Mytton]

Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap.



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap. JohnM

Again, you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s. Here are just a few of the problems that modern research has uncovered with the autopsy photos of the head:

* F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors never even mentioned.

* The skull x-rays show a sizable amount of frontal bone missing, but no such damage is evident in the extant autopsy photos that show the face and the front of the head (F1, F6, F7, and G1).

* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." (p. 3)

However, neither of the back-of-head photos (F3 and F5) shows any such damage. In F3, the only large defect is clearly above and mostly forward of the right ear. No part of the wound even comes close to the occipital region in F3 and F5.

* The autopsy photos F6, F7, and G1, i.e., the right-profile and top-of-head pictures, show impossible colors. In the color versions of these photos, there are three large bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos, the stripes are white or light gray. This is a photographic impossibility with orthochromatic film. With such film, red turns to black, not to white or light gray. Professional photographer Steve Mills has said the following about this problem:

Orthochromatic film, unfiltered, records blue very lightly and red very darkly. This makes perfect sense in [autopsy photos] F1 through F5. Yet, here's a supposedly bloodied scalp in F6 and F7 recorded as light gray. This can be done with a red filter on ortho film, but the blood drops on the towel show me this is not the case. The scalp can't be gray and three bloody spots still be dark if a filter was used. It is common to use ortho film in forensic photography to show differences and details in red and blue areas. But this is no proof. The record declares one type of film, and the photos declare either another or fraud. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, p. 584)

Mills goes on to discuss indications of fraud in the Groden color autopsy photos in relation to the stripes and the scalp:

They [the autopsy photos] also show Groden's color shots to be frauds. Let me explain.

1) Let's say it was pan b/w. F6 and F7 would have to be shot with a blue filter to lighten the stripe. That would darken the supposedly bloody scalp. You can't have it both ways, i.e., light red and light blue, so there's no red filter either. This would not work. So, if it's truly pan film, then the scalp is not bloody skin but brain matter.

2) Let's say it's ortho film. The blue stripe will always be light and the red will always be dark. No filter is required if the scalp is really brain tissue, but a red one is still needed to lighten blood. But here the bloody spots prove this is not the case once again. So do the bloody marks on his shoulder.

So, here's the result: They probably used ortho film and no filtering of any kind. that is brain and not scalp. We can see that no combination of film and filtration can give you b/w photos that will jibe with Groden’s colors. they have to be fake. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, pp. 584-585)

* We now know that numerous autopsy witnesses told the HSCA that the autopsy photos of the head did not show the large head wound that they recalled seeing.

* We now know that when the HSCA FPP showed F3 to Dr. Finck to convince him that he had erred by a staggering 4 inches in his description of the rear head entry wound, Finck would have none of it and even questioned how F3 had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy!

* We now know that nearly every single autopsy witness interviewed by the HSCA said the large head wound was in the back of the head, not on the side or top of the head.

* We now know that several autopsy witnesses drew wound diagrams of the large head wound for the HSCA, and they drew the wound in the back of the head. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who not only watched the autopsy but reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.

* We now know that the autopsy witnesses agreed with the Dallas witnesses that the large wound was in the back of the head, not on the side of the head.

* We now know, thanks to a released WC transcript, that Jackie Kennedy told the WC that on the way to Parkland Hospital, she was trying to hold together the back of her husband's head, and that there was no damage, "nothing," in the front of the head.

* Clint Hill was in the unique position of having seen JFK's large head wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and then again at Bethesda Hospital. He was called to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds, and he once again said the large wound was in the back of the head.

* Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who packed JFK's large head wound with cotton and who then wrapped his head and body for placement in the coffin, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that she saw no damage to the side or top of the head.

* ALL of the Parkland JFK medical treatment reports, written hours after the shooting and dated 11/22/63, say the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head, and four of them specify that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound. This is crucial because cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue.

WC apologists are conditioned to say "they were all mistaken" in response to this massive eyewitness evidence, but reasonable people don't buy that absurd explanation. A few witnesses in any crime will often be mistaken, but we are talking about three groups of witnesses in three different locations who all said the same thing about the large head wound, and most of those witnesses were either federal agents or medical personnel. So the lame line that "they were all mistaken" just will not cut it for any rational, objective person.

And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6 and F7 show impossible colors.

[John Mytton]

I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.

Hi Jerry, I came across a high definition Moorman photo and saw what appeared to be a definite pattern at the back of JFK's head and as usual without any preconceived notion I just wanted to see if there was any correlation between Moorman and the autopsy photos and to nobodies surprise the images appeared to match, which along with all the other corroborating physical evidence is just another nail in the coffin of this bizarre overly complicated conspiracy.

At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.

Griffith seems to think that a wall of text which is often not academically peer reviewed is all he needs, but it takes a lot more than that.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

 

All of “Mytton’s” cartoons are based on preconceived notions.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.

Right, so massive evidence that autopsy photos F3, F5, F6, and F7 have been doctored is what you call "diversion." In your brain, massive evidence that the large head wound was in the back of the head is "diversion." Your only other answer to all this evidence is that "they were all mistaken."

And, uh, just FYI, I copied and pasted only a few lines of that long list of evidence. I typed most of it.

At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.

You should take a few writing courses; learn a little English. While you're at it, get someone to explain to you the difference between "imply" and "infer," because you don't seem to know the difference.

Now, the paragraph you quote and the paragraph before it were summary/closing paragraphs. Yes, I was aware that I had mentioned the items in the second summary paragraph earlier in my long reply, but I had not yet mentioned them in my closing. I guess you could not distinguish between the body of my reply and the closing/summary.

I notice you still have not tried to defend your comical statement that Humes did not need to measure the entry wound in the skull and only glanced at it. How long have you been studying this case? A few weeks? This is the kind of nonsense that one would expect from a newcomer who had only read a handful of books on the case.

One reason that autopsy doctors have to carefully study bullet holes in skulls is to examine them for beveling, chipping, etc. One reason that pathologists have to measure bullet holes in skulls is that the scalp hole and the skull hole will not always correspond.

We both know why you are straining and reaching so badly here: You simply cannot afford to admit that Humes measured the skull hole. Nor can you admit that his use of the term "corresponding wound" was common forensic verbiage to say that the skull hole was the same size as the scalp hole. You can't afford to admit these things because this would mean that the rear head entry wound was not made by a 6.5 mm missile.

And I would bet good money that six months from now, if someone were to post another thread on this issue, you would repeat the same nonsensical claims and just hope that nobody viewing the thread knew better.