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: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM ---You are trying to have it both ways.
MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”
MTG-” When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?”
--- End quote ---
Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM ---How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds.
--- End quote ---
Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM ---Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
--- End quote ---
Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.
You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM ---JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear.
--- End quote ---
Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).
And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).
What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM --- The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.
--- End quote ---
LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM ---I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.
--- End quote ---
If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 08, 2024, 07:32:10 PM ---Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.
Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.
You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.
Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).
And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).
What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.
LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.
If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.
--- End quote ---
Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 09, 2024, 03:18:52 AM ---Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.
--- End quote ---
How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?
How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?
How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?
How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?
How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?
How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?
How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)
How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?
Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?
Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)
Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).
Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?
Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?
Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).
Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."
Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).
How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?
How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 09, 2024, 01:44:15 PM ---How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?
How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?
How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?
How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?
How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?
How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?
How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)
How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?
Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?
Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)
Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).
Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?
Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?
Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).
Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."
Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).
How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?
How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
--- End quote ---
1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?
1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!
2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?
3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.
4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.
The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty
@2:50
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q4LUF9aH6Y
5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.
6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.
I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.
As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.
The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm
JohnM
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?
--- End quote ---
Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.
When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!
--- End quote ---
Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?
--- End quote ---
LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?
When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.
--- End quote ---
That's a joke, right?
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.
--- End quote ---
Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?
If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?
You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty
--- End quote ---
Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.
Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.
--- End quote ---
More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM ---6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.
I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.
As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.
The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm JohnM
--- End quote ---
Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf
I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.
Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:
------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.
Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.
But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)
If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.
1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.
2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.
3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.
4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.
5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)
Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.
For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------
It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.
Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version