JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 15, 2024, 08:00:34 PM ---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)?
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.
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?
That's a joke, right?
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.
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?)
More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. SPersonivan, 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.
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?
--- End quote ---
You can't be serious?
I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.
Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....
Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.
Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!
Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.
Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder! Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!
JohnM
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---You can't be serious?
--- End quote ---
Do you think people won't notice that you have once again avoided dealing with contrary evidence and are simply repeating arguments that I've answered several times in detail?
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!
--- End quote ---
Your graphics are fraudulent and are even contradicted by some of your own side's experts, as I've noted before.
And, who, pray tell, are the "unqualified Conspiracy Kooks"? I've cited the late Dr. Art Snyder, who held a doctorate in physics and worked as a physicist at Stanford University. I've cited Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics and is a former professor of physics at the University of Michigan, in addition to being a board-certified and peer-review-published radiation oncologist. I've cited the late Dr. Roderick Ryan, who worked as a photography and film scientist with Kodak, who held a doctorate in cinema and comms from USC, who was a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and who was a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films.
You sound like a Flat Earther who's dismissing the observations of scientists by calling the scientists "unqualified Round Earth Kooks."
I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.
--- End quote ---
Uh, is this supposed to be your answer to Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film? Is this supposed to be your answer to the several paragraphs that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's paper? Leaving aside the fact that your qualifications are nothing compared to Dr. Mantik's qualifications, if Dr. Mantik's scientific observations about impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film are "non-supported gibberish," you should have no problem refuting them. For your convenience, here, again, is the link to his 42-page study on alteration:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf
You're full of bluff and bluster. You never back up your polemic with valid sources or facts. You just keep repeating your arguments and reposting bogus, deceptive graphics.
I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....
--- End quote ---
LOL! How do you move with a "natural fluid motion" from where Brehm Jr. starts to where he ends up in no more than 0.61 seconds?! You are a master at missing--or avoiding--the point. The whole point is that you can't move between those two locations in that amount of time in a "natural fluid motion." My son Jacob only came somewhat close to matching Brehm Jr.'s time by practically jumping into the required spot, but then he had to take time to steady himself.
And I take it that you are never going to do your own reenactment to prove that any kid that age could perform that movement in barely half a second, right? I mean, if there's nothing unusual about the speed of the movement, you should be anxious and willing to prove this with a reenactment. We both know that you can't. We both know that that's why you won't do a reenactment.
Would you like my son Jacob's phone number? He played the kid in my reenactment (he was in his teens at the time). You can talk to him and ask him anything you want about my reenactment. Send me a private message and I'll give you his email address and phone number.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.
--- End quote ---
Oh, hogwash. Your denial of observable reality is astounding. Anyone can look at the two frames and see that the camera angles are not drastically different. That's why both frames show the respective rear tires, the respective sides of the rear bumper, and the respective sides of Jackie and Agent Hill. This would not be the case if the camera angles were markedly different. I've pointed out this fact before, and you just keep ignoring it. If the camera angles were drastically different, we would not see the respective sides of these objects.
Again, you can delude yourself into imagining that the obvious differences in the locations and positions of Jackie's and Hill's heads and bodies in the two frames are an optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but anyone with two working eyes can see that this is not the case. You just can't face this fact because admitting it would mean admitting that the Zapruder film has been altered.
I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!
--- End quote ---
This is juvenile pettiness. You know I was referring to the sequence before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat, as I immediately clarified once I realized I had misspoken. Are you really so immature and dense as to think that anyone is going to believe that I did not know that after Z380 Hill helps Jackie get back into her seat? Really?
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.
--- End quote ---
HUH? Can you read? How many times have I explained that in Z353 Summers' left leg is splayed forward and that his left foot is clearly extended beyond his right foot? That's the whole point, because 56 thousandths of a second later, or just 1/18th/second later, his left foreleg is bent noticeably backward and his left foot is now directly above his right foot! Moreover, by Z356, just 1/6th/second later at Z33, his legs, arms, and feet are in an obviously different position than they are in Z353.
This is at least the third time you have ducked and dodged these self-evident, readily observable facts. I mean, sheesh, do you somehow think that people won't notice your bald-faced evasion and dissembling on this issue?
Folks, to get an idea of John Mytton's evasion and misrepresentation on this issue, read my segment on Summers' movements in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder!
--- End quote ---
LOL! I ask you, again: If your slowdown is "very clear," how did Dr. Alvarez miss it?! How did Dr. Alvarez, not to mention every other expert who has examined the film, miss your "dramatic" slowdown?! The only slowdown he detected, after many hours of frame-by-frame analysis, is the Z295-304 slowdown, a slowdown (1) that no one else had detected until then and (2) that is virtually unnoticeable when you watch the film at normal speed. It is beyond silly to argue that this half-second slowdown is the stop or marked slowdown that dozens of witnesses described seeing.
You are either deluding yourself or you have terrible eyesight. Your slowdown GIF is naked fraud and exposes you as a charlatan or as a person with bad eyesight.
BTW, when are you going to deal with the fact that the Muchmore film shows the limo's brake lights on for nine frames? Yet, in the Zapruder film the limo appears to move at a steady speed until after Z314, and after Z314 the limo speeds up.
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM ---Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!
--- End quote ---
You're again acting like a juvenile. As I've pointed out to you several times now, my article on alteration never just says "slowdown" but "marked slowdown," "rapid slowdown," "slowed markedly," and "slowed down markedly," in addition to "stop" and "stopped," e.g., "the car stopped or markedly slowed" (p. 1) and "Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the current Zapruder film" (p. 2).
Do you just not understand the difference between "slowdown" and "marked slowdown/rapid slowdown"? Do you just not understand the difference between "the car slowed down" and "the car markedly/rapidly slowed down"? Is your English so bad that you don't understand the difference between the generic term "slowdown" and the more specific term "marked/rapid slowdown"?
I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.
Michael T. Griffith:
You never hear WC apologists talk about the fact that Dr. Russell Morgan, one of the most eminent radiologists in his day and the only radiologist on the four-member Clark Panel, expressed doubts about the kind of ammo that hit JFK's head and said that the bullet may have been a dumdum bullet (aka hollow-point bullet). In September 1977, Morgan said,
--- Quote ---The fragmentation in the slide [the x-ray slide] was so severe that one had to wonder if it was a so-called dum-dum bullet [hollow-point bullet] as opposed to the kind which was found on the floor [on the floor of JFK's limo]. (Lansing State Journal, 16 September 1977, p. 10, see https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/reviewing-the-autopsy-x-rays/, starting at 22:49)
--- End quote ---
Dr. Morgan added that he would be willing to participate in the HSCA investigation.
As many scholars have noted, not one of the FMJ bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests broke into dozens of fragments. Similarly, not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test broke into numerous fragments. FMJ bullets fired from medium-velocity or low-velocity rifles, such as the alleged murder weapon, will rarely if ever break into numerous fragments (see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing).
FYI, Dr. Morgan was responsible for the most important advances in the 20th century in the quality, safety and application of x-ray technology. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health website notes that Dr. Morgan
--- Quote ---. . . invented an exposure meter that reduced the need for repeated x-rays, developed an automatic timer to shut off x-ray exposure the moment the film had been properly exposed, and significantly improved picture quality so that fewer x-rays were required of patients. His landmark studies on image formation culminated in such technological triumphs as incorporating television monitors, physiologic optics, and computer analysis in radiologic science. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/about/history/heroes-of-public-health/russell-e-morgan-md)
--- End quote ---
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 18, 2024, 06:14:56 PM ---You never hear WC apologists talk about the fact that Dr. Russell Morgan, one of the most eminent radiologists in his day and the only radiologist on the four-member Clark Panel, expressed doubts about the kind of ammo that hit JFK's head and said that the bullet may have been a dumdum bullet (aka hollow-point bullet). In September 1977, Morgan said,
Dr. Morgan added that he would be willing to participate in the HSCA investigation.
As many scholars have noted, not one of the FMJ bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests broke into dozens of fragments. Similarly, not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test broke into numerous fragments. FMJ bullets fired from medium-velocity or low-velocity rifles, such as the alleged murder weapon, will rarely if ever break into numerous fragments (see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing).
FYI, Dr. Morgan was responsible for the most important advances in the 20th century in the quality, safety and application of x-ray technology. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health website notes that Dr. Morgan
--- End quote ---
Uh-oh, here we go again.
Like your bizarre responses above, in regards to Zapruder alteration, where you keep using people who are completely unqualified to discuss film alteration, here you quote a guy who seems to be good at taking X-Rays(Big Deal) and he's obviously discussing a topic which is way beyond his paygrade, "Wound Ballistics" and then you disturbingly wonder why he's rarely discussed, well, Duh!
Yet, you are the one who constantly ignores Experts who are actually qualified and are real life Scholars in their chosen fields? Go figure??
Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who you like to dismiss, is the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch and performed practical recreations of Kennedy's head wound, why don't you quote this guy? Oh that's right you have a vested interest in supporting anything but.
Dr. Alfred G. Olivier while using human skulls recreated the shot into the back of Kennedy's head and guess what "Einstein", the bullet separated into two pieces and closely resembled the recovered bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo. I bet your guy who was seemingly good at taking X-Rays didn't do this experiment but instead postulated his dumb dumdum bullet theory without considering the entirety of the physical evidence.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
1. The 2 larger test bullet fragments recovered by Dr. Oliver.
2. The 2 larger bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's Limo
And contrary to the belief of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, Dr. Oliver showed that the bullet after penetrating a human skull broke up into a shower of smaller lead fragments.
Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
-------snip------
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
And just to show you how inadequate your research really is, here's Dr. John Lattimer who also did the same experiment and lo and behold his Carcano Bullet also broke up into two larger fragments.
So Griffith, instead of sweeping the very depths of the sewers in your search for unqualified anybody's that dispute the official findings of the many qualified Experts of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and etc. etc., perhaps you better start embracing these fine upstanding Pillars of Society who have the words TRUTH and Justice emblazoned as their middle names!
JohnM
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 17, 2024, 05:47:30 PM ---
HUH? Can you read? How many times have I explained that in Z353 Summers' left leg is splayed forward and that his left foot is clearly extended beyond his right foot? That's the whole point, because 56 thousandths of a second later, or just 1/18th/second later, his left foreleg is bent noticeably backward and his left foot is now directly above his right foot! Moreover, by Z356, just 1/6th/second later at Z33, his legs, arms, and feet are in an obviously different position than they are in Z353.
This is at least the third time you have ducked and dodged these self-evident, readily observable facts. I mean, sheesh, do you somehow think that people won't notice your bald-faced evasion and dissembling on this issue?
Folks, to get an idea of John Mytton's evasion and misrepresentation on this issue, read my segment on Summers' movements in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link.
--- End quote ---
Ffs, just how many time are you going to misrepresent my graphics, the frame that YOU claim is Summers' left leg being "bent noticeably backward" is in fact his left leg splayed forward, it's called perspective, and here's frame Z357 showing exactly what I've been saying, his left leg is pointing towards the camera and his left shoe is partially obscuring his right shin.
At NO point that Summers' is being seen in Zapruder, has Summers left leg "bent noticeably backward".
I made this stabilized GIF which is technically way beyond what you can produce or even understand, clearly shows at all times Summers' left leg always pointing towards Zapruder's camera and his legs, arms, and feet are in different positions because he's falling to the ground, your continued amateur efforts to analyze absolutely anything in the visual record constantly defies belief!
Btw if you look closely at the last frame before Summers' meets the socket area, after his frontal splaying left leg is being brought towards his body, the resulting momentum lifts his left knee and his his lower left leg springs slightly forward and specifically his left shoe is kicking forward. Which is the last nail in the coffin and only further destroys your absurd original observation. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen and Girls and Boys, but here with this soul destroying fact, I rest my case.
P.S. if as you claim, this is yet another film segment that has had frames removed, how come Altgen's backwards walk and the constantly moving Limo show no signs of being altered? In other words how did they specifically isolate Summers' movement and most importantly why would the evil overseeing "they" feel the need to separate Summer's natural appearing movements from events occurring all around him?
P.S.S. And one last consideration to ponder, some of the exact same Summers' frames that we have now, were published in LIFE magazine a week later and allowing for acquiring, organizing, printing and distribution only leaves a precious few days for your alteration to occur, so how long do you honestly believe that it took for this massive deception to take place?
JohnM
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version