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:
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 31, 2023, 08:20:03 PM ---Here we go again. U will not find one gelatine test or soap test etc in the history of the universe that shows that a fragmenting bullet leaves a cloud of fragments anywhere near the bullet's entry into the gelative or soap etc. The fragments are all always much deeper. Even if hitting something very hard just before entry. Wait. U said exploding bullet (i mean Sturdivan said). Ok, exploding is different. I will have to have another look.
--- End quote ---
So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.
You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM ---Oh, I get it, the conspirators only altered the sequences that don't affect your wacky conspiracy theories, how frigging convenient!
--- End quote ---
This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.
Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM ---Anyway, I don't want to offend you and call you an amateur because that would be an insult to an amateur, it's obvious that you have never done any basic editing much less the extensive fakery that you suggest happened to the Zapruder film. Because even 1 removed frame interrupts the flow of the film and is immediately obvious.
--- End quote ---
The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?
FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.
FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA
Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):
https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up
And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM ---For example you have said that they simply edited out numerous Zapruder frames* so that Clint and Jackie appeared to be close in the Nix film, and that they both appeared far away in the Zapruder Film but,
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Hill between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Jackie between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous movement of the backgrounds, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous and synchronized movement of the crowd, you didn't.
--- End quote ---
This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.
Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.
We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.
Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM ---What you are inadvertently implying and clearly don't understand is that the fakery involved required separating individual elements, travelling mattes and excessively complicated compositing, each of which involved resizing, matching motion blur and integration at the granular level.
--- End quote ---
Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM ---You are so far out of your depth but what the heck, how about you just say they altered the film and you can leave it at that.
--- End quote ---
You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.
Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM ---Clueless Alterationist's make me SICK! JohnM
--- End quote ---
What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 01, 2024, 12:46:17 PM ---So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.
You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.
This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.
Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?
The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?
FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.
FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA
Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):
https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up
And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.
This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.
Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.
We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.
Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.
Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.
You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.
Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.
What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school-level English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.
--- End quote ---
Hilarious, now we know you don't have a clue when you ignore my valid criticisms and are are brainlessly reduced to attacking my occasional lack of an apostrophe or a comma, how pathetic, how about you take some time and instead of this weak diversion, you actually learn the subject that you clearly don't understand and tell us how your massive fakery was accomplished. It's way too easy to make an empty claim but to reinforce your words with actual proof of concept, well, that takes an effort that so far, is way beyond your pay grade.
--- Quote ---Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors.
--- End quote ---
Talk about delusions of grandeur, it's a well known fact that Einstein committed a lot of grade-school English errors, which btw had zero to do with his "Theory of Relativity", are you claiming that you are smarter than Einstein?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.
For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?
As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.
--- Quote ---Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist,
--- End quote ---
WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.
--- Quote ---Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh?
--- End quote ---
OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.
The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.
Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!
JohnM
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 01, 2024, 12:46:17 PM ---So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.
You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.
--- End quote ---
Donahue (MORTAL ERROR) says that fragments are not found near entry. Sturdivan says they are found near entry. Gelatine tells us that Donahue is correct.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---Maybe you have become too desperate to prove this point that you are no longer rationally assessing the evidence and the experts’ opinions. You are reading things into their words that are not there.
Let me help you stay on track; your point is not proven by what he said. You said it was a bullet fragment Sturdivan said it was not.
Baden and Sturdivan both think it has not one thing to do with the bullet yet here you are claiming it does. Exactly what is your point? That you know more than they do. You are arguing it is a piece of a bullet and they are telling you that would be impossible because of its shape and that somehow proves your point.
--- End quote ---
You are totally and hopelessly clueless. You still have not read most of my previous replies in this thread, have you? Let me give you a brief history lesson on the 6.5 mm object:
1. The 6.5 mm object was first identified by the Clark Panel. Not having access to optical density (OD) analysis, they assumed, logically enough, that it was a bullet fragment, since it clearly is not a bone fragment.
2. The RC and HSCA medical panels noted the object and likewise assumed it was a bullet fragment.
3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fragment's existence. No WC apologist has yet explained how in the world this fragment could have come from an FMJ bullet that entered at the cowlick site, much less from the bullet's cross section. The HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the fragment's presence. Sturdivan simply ignored the fragment in his 2005 book.
4. Some 20 years after the HSCA, using new optical density measurement technology, Dr. David Mantik, who happens to be a physicist and a radiation oncologist, discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. He also found, using high magnification and OD analysis, that the image of the 6.5 mm object was double-exposed/ghosted over a genuine smaller fragment that is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size.
The brightness of the 6.5 mm object obscured the genuine smaller fragment within it from detection, until Dr. Mantik examined it with an OD densitometer, which he uses in his work as a radiation oncologist, and then applied high magnification to it. Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements and analysis.
5. Sturdivan only announced that he no longer believed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment after Dr. Mantik published his OD analysis in 1998. Sturdivan first rejected the object as a fragment in 1999 in emails to researchers, and he rejected it as a fragment in his 2005 book JFK Myths.
6. Sturdivan, to his great credit, began explaining in 1999 why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment but must be an artifact. He did so again in his 2005 book. However, as mentioned, he did not even try to explain the McDonnel fragment. Since he had already admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull, he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for the McDonnel fragment.
7. Moreover, Sturdivan said nothing in his 2005 book about the genuine smaller fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. He was surely aware of it, because he cited Dr. Mantik's OD analysis. Yet, he chose to ignore it, obviously because he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for it.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---A conspiracy believer talking about a frangible bullet, how unique. To actually be a card carrying certified CT don’t you have to have at least one exploding bullet in the story?
The bullet is fragmenting in the brain and as it strikes the inside of the right side of his head upon exiting, it completely fragments leaving fragments. Is your point is the exit wound is an entrance wound? This whole explanation from you circles back to two shooters with carcanos. A point you do not seem to want to address. Where is the evidence of a second bullet.
--- End quote ---
This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.
Where in all of your mangled-English propaganda is there an explanation for the two separate wound paths through the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage? Where is it? How did those two wound paths get created if only one bullet struck the skull?
Where is the entrance wound that can explain the high fragment trail? Where is it? Even your own side's best wound ballistics expert has repudiated the entry site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP fabricated to try to explain the high fragment trail. Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail's existence? Huh? Why?
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---You seem unable to address the window and chrome strip damage as being an indicator of the direction of the bullets travel. That alone pretty much ends this conspiracy mental meltdown. All discussion as to where the shot came from has to center around the TSBD. A shot from the front is not even in the realm of possibilities.
--- End quote ---
LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.
Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---I have read enough conspiracy books to know how one dimensional they really are.
--- End quote ---
And I say you're lying. You repeatedly blunder all over the place over basic stuff, stuff that has been covered in numerous scholarly books on the case for conspiracy. Heck, you don't even have a good handle on the lone-gunman theory.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---A piece of evidence is contorted to be the basis for a massive coverup. This is no different. Everything is explained if their statements are not distorted and perverted in an attempt to extract a different line of reasoning.
--- End quote ---
More of your blah-blah sweeping general assertions based on your ignorance of JFK assassination research. Just look at how badly you blundered over the 6.5 mm object, as we see above. You didn't even know the basics about the 6.5 mm object, not to mention the McDonnel fragment.
The only person contorting evidence is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---Maybe you need to write an addendum to your book explaining how the shot could only have come from the rear because the bullet fragments went forward of JFK. It is just simple physics. Make sure you explain how a bullet that is yawing in flight could alter the trajectory once it hits the skull and brain and follow a new trajectory based on the direction the nose of the bullet is pointing in flight. That will help with your difficulties understanding the entrance and exit wounds. If you would actually read Sturdivan’s testimony instead of scouring it trying to prove strange beliefs, he explains all of this in simple to understand English.
--- End quote ---
LOL! Uhhhhh, how about the two bullet fragments in the back of the skull???????? Did you forget about those? They certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did they? How about the bullet or fragment that caused the four-inch, dug-out bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street? That certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did it?
What's more, how about the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague? How do you get a bullet/fragment from JFK's skull to a curb over 250 feet away with the limousine's roll bar in between? Any fragment from JFK's head would have had to magically clear the limo's roll bar to have any chance of hitting the curb near Tague. Did the fragment have its own propulsion system that enabled it to magically fly over the roll bar? If the windshield and the windshield's chrome stopped the two fragments found in the front of the limo from leaving the limo, how in the world would another fragment from JFK's head have cleared the roll bar?
And on and on and on we could go. The problem is that your knowledge of the JFK case is very limited and that your research has been woefully biased and incomplete.
"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM ---So you agree a bullet can leave a fragment or traces upon entering the skull. If it can leave a little on something pliable like fabric, it can leave a lot on a bone. Baden and Sturdivan agree with you, but that it is not part of a bullet. The question is not can there be a fragment, the question is the description of the fragment being a 6.5mm round shape.
--- End quote ---
What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?
Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 02, 2024, 03:25:18 PM ---You are totally and hopelessly clueless. You still have not read most of my previous replies in this thread, have you? Let me give you a brief history lesson on the 6.5 mm object:
1. The 6.5 mm object was first identified by the Clark Panel. Not having access to optical density (OD) analysis, they assumed, logically enough, that it was a bullet fragment, since it clearly is not a bone fragment.
2. The RC and HSCA medical panels noted the object and likewise assumed it was a bullet fragment.
3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fragment's existence. No WC apologist has yet explained how in the world this fragment could have come from an FMJ bullet that entered at the cowlick site, much less from the bullet's cross section. The HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the fragment's presence. Sturdivan simply ignored the fragment in his 2005 book.
4. Some 20 years after the HSCA, using new optical density measurement technology, Dr. David Mantik, who happens to be a physicist and a radiation oncologist, discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. He also found, using high magnification and OD analysis, that the image of the 6.5 mm object was double-exposed/ghosted over a genuine smaller fragment that is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size.
The brightness of the 6.5 mm object obscured the genuine smaller fragment within it from detection, until Dr. Mantik examined it with an OD densitometer, which he uses in his work as a radiation oncologist, and then applied high magnification to it. Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements and analysis.
5. Sturdivan only announced that he no longer believed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment after Dr. Mantik published his OD analysis in 1998. Sturdivan first rejected the object as a fragment in 1999 in emails to researchers, and he rejected it as a fragment in his 2005 book JFK Myths.
6. Sturdivan, to his great credit, began explaining in 1999 why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment but must be an artifact. He did so again in his 2005 book. However, as mentioned, he did not even try to explain the McDonnel fragment. Since he had already admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull, he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for the McDonnel fragment.
7. Moreover, Sturdivan said nothing in his 2005 book about the genuine smaller fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. He was surely aware of it, because he cited Dr. Mantik's OD analysis. Yet, he chose to ignore it, obviously because he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for it.
This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.
Where in all of your mangled-English propaganda is there an explanation for the two separate wound paths through the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage? Where is it? How did those two wound paths get created if only one bullet struck the skull?
Where is the entrance wound that can explain the high fragment trail? Where is it? Even your own side's best wound ballistics expert has repudiated the entry site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP fabricated to try to explain the high fragment trail. Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail's existence? Huh? Why?
LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.
Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.
And I say you're lying. You repeatedly blunder all over the place over basic stuff, stuff that has been covered in numerous scholarly books on the case for conspiracy. Heck, you don't even have a good handle on the lone-gunman theory.
More of your blah-blah sweeping general assertions based on your ignorance of JFK assassination research. Just look at how badly you blundered over the 6.5 mm object, as we see above. You didn't even know the basics about the 6.5 mm object, not to mention the McDonnel fragment.
The only person contorting evidence is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.
LOL! Uhhhhh, how about the two bullet fragments in the back of the skull???????? Did you forget about those? They certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did they? How about the bullet or fragment that caused the four-inch, dug-out bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street? That certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did it?
What's more, how about the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague? How do you get a bullet/fragment from JFK's skull to a curb over 250 feet away with the limousine's roll bar in between? Any fragment from JFK's head would have had to magically clear the limo's roll bar to have any chance of hitting the curb near Tague. Did the fragment have its own propulsion system that enabled it to magically fly over the roll bar? If the windshield and the windshield's chrome stopped the two fragments found in the front of the limo from leaving the limo, how in the world would another fragment from JFK's head have cleared the roll bar?
And on and on and on we could go. The problem is that your knowledge of the JFK case is very limited and that your research has been woefully biased and incomplete.
"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.
What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?
Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.
--- End quote ---
MTG--”LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.”
Seriously, you have to be told that there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome strip damage than the trajectory of the head wound of JFK? Do you think it is because JFK is sitting in the back of the car and the fragment damage takes place 10 feet in front of him. You believe that by some form of conspiratorial magic the trajectories of all three should somehow line up? Really?
The HSCA did everything to help the conspiratorial cause, but the evidence clearly shows it was just one shooter.
“Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets could be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository.”
-----------------------------------------------------
So which of your statements is the correct statement. Can there be, or is it, can there not be a fragment left at the outer table? According to you and Dr. McDonnel there can be a fragment left at the outer table. According to you, there cannot be a fragment left at the outer table.
MTG--”3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table.”
MTG--”What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?”
=====================
You are making this way too hard. It is really simple. Here is what the truth is and it explains the assassination. There were only two shots fired that day by LHO. The rest of this nonsense is just mental masturbation over nothing. It is nothing more than wallowing around in the mud looking for evidence and taking that evidence out of context in the hopes of proving some bizarre conspiracy. Your combined explanation of the headshot makes absolutely no sense when viewed in its totality. Where are the entrance and exit wounds for the two shots? Where are the witnesses confirming two shots struck the president’s head? Zapruder’s film completely affirms there was only one shot not two that struck JFK’s head.
What is interesting and I think defines the need for a conspiracy in the mindset of people believing in a conspiracy, is the fact that Josiah Thompson knew in 1966 that LHO only fired two shots. He wrote about the shell information in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. He knew from having examined 30+ shells that the chamber mark was not on CE 543 but was on every other shell he examined that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI during testing. Even the unfired cartridge CE141 had the chamber mark. The chamber marks existence was first identified by the FBI in Hoover’s June 2nd letter to Rankin. Josiah Thompson chose to use the information in a manner that this somehow proved the existence of a second shooter instead of using it to prove the SBT and lone gunman.
Now here it is 60+ years later and you are still taking known information and attempting to pervert it into a conspiracy. Not because there is a conspiracy but because you need one to understand what happened. Good for you to be part of the 2/3 of the people who believe but cannot even raise a question as to whether there was a conspiracy.
-------------------------------------
MTG--"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.
This desire to be a lemming and join the crowd is definitely affecting your judgement. Maybe try to think for yourself.
Both the WC and HSCA conclusions state that the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. In reality the HSCA and WC believed there were only two shots not three. The HSCA four shot dictabelt and conspiracy nonsense were the result of the goofy thinking that took place in the 70’s. Wasn’t Gary Mack himself one of the sponsors of the Dictabelt fiasco you appear to follow.
-----------------------------------------------
MTG--”This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.”
No, I know what they are and their purpose, I just don’t think you do.
--------------------------------
It looks like you are lost and confused in all the different types of evidence. Maybe quantifying what is important and what is not will help you to understand. Here is a few to start you off.
Important—window damage, damage to chrome strip, trajectory, Eyewitness accounts of there only having been one shot and they hear the bullet hit, fragmented bullet evidence,
Not important—Unknown artifact that is not a bullet fragment, explaining a fragmenting bullets path through the brain, frangible bullets, quantifying brain damage when everyone knows a third of it was blown in the air.
It is interesting you do understand the importance of the forward damage to the window and chrome strip. Actually, talking about it seems to make you squeal which is encouraging that you really do understand the importance.
-----------------------------------
MTG--”Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.”
Both Sides? You understand there is a whole other logical explanation for all this nonsense, but you choose to not believe it?
Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.
Doesn’t your star expert refute this?
Again, the reason for this is it was not a bullet fragment. You and a special case expert believe it is a bullet fragment, but I don’t see where anyone else does.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version