JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Michael T. Griffith:
WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.
There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry SPersonivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.
There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:
--- Quote ---A small metallic fragment lies medial to the fracture site between the galea and the outer table of the skull. . . .
A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table. (“Report of G.M. McDonnel,” August 4, 1978, in 7 HSCA 218, 221).
--- End quote ---
Oddly, in his 2005 book, SPersonivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, SPersonivan does not mention either of them.
However, SPersonivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from SPersonivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
--- Quote ---It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185, emphasis added)
--- End quote ---
Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.
Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist SPersonivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)
However, as mentioned, SPersonivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.
Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.
So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.
Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.
In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, SPersonivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:
--- Quote ---I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (E-mail from Larry SPersonivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998, in David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 21)
--- End quote ---
The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that SPersonivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.
Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.0.html
In particular my #53 ....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.48.html
And #67....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.64.html
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 18, 2022, 11:44:45 PM ---I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.
[From your first link:]When i say hits i mean it misses JFK & hits the signal arm & then it fragments.
(1) The remnant slug puts a non-round hole in the floor of the limo tween the jump seats (we have a photo) & hits the road.
(2) The copper jacket breaks into 2 pieces as is usual (it is made of 2 pieces joined together), giving us CE567 CE569 found in the car.
(3) Small lead fragments hit JFK in the back of his head (as seen on xrays).
(4) Other larger lead fragments found in the limo might belong to Oswald's shot-1 or they might belong to Hickey's AR15.
However i reckon that Oswald's shot-1 happened at Z113
--- End quote ---
This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?
Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z209, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.
Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 20, 2022, 02:56:50 PM ---This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?
Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z207, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.
Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.
--- End quote ---
If u have a look at my thread/link u will see that Holland reckoned that JFK was obstructed by the signal arm at (pseudo) Z103. I reckoned it woz at (psueudo) Z113. The diff being a half limo length (10 ft @ 1 Z frame per ft). I am happy to split the diff, in which case Oswald shot-1 woz at say (pseudo) Z108.
The Roselle & Scearce investigation of reactions seen after Z133 concludes that the first shot was at about (pseudo) Z120 i think (i karnt remember), based on typical startle reaction times.
My thread/link includes a reconstructed view from the sniper's nest – this shows that the downwards vertical angle was no problem – something less than 40 deg off horizontal.
The ricochet offa the signal arm is a bit of a problem. There are 10 possibilities.
A simple ricochet offa the western or eastern side of the eastern guyrod (1)(2), or offa the main pipe (3)(4), or offa the western guyrod (5)(6).
Or a double ricochet offa the eastern guyrod & the pipe (7) – or offa the pipe & the eastern guyrod ( 8 ) – or offa the pipe & the western guyrod (9) – or offa the western guyrod & the pipe (10).
The more i think about it the more i favor a double ricochet – say two slightly glancing kontakts – enuff to break the brass jacket into two (found in the limo), plus give a large remnant lead slug (which makes a hole in the floor of the limo), plus some lead splatter (Xray of head).
There is a possibility that the two brass bits of jacket separated when the slug went through the floor (unlikely i think).
I would have a better idea of the exact possible nature of the ricochet if i could find the youtube footage of i think it was Haag's ricochet tests offa pipe -- or at least find the full report of the ricochet tests -- i think that the youtube requires a $$$ fee.
Holland's (& i think Donahue's) theory that the first shot caused the wound to Tague's left cheek is of course silly.
I have explained that Tague's wound was due to Hickey's first or say second shot of his accidental auto burst of his AR15 at say Z300 to Z313. The last shot being the headshot – the remnant slug cracking the windshield glass. The second last shot denting the chrome trim above the mirror.
In a few minutes time i will insert the above comments onto my two threads from 2021 dealing with these two matters – so as not to derail your present thread.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 17, 2022, 08:40:37 PM ---WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.
There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry SPersonivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.
There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:
Oddly, in his 2005 book, SPersonivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, SPersonivan does not mention either of them.
However, SPersonivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from SPersonivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.
Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist SPersonivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)
However, as mentioned, SPersonivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.
Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.
So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.
Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.
In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, SPersonivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:
The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that SPersonivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.
Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.
--- End quote ---
There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.
Humes: Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI. --- ARRB Deposition
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version