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: Tim Nickerson on May 29, 2025, 04:30:34 PM ---There were no bullet fragments on the back of JFK's skull.
--- End quote ---
I've already proved, in this thread, that there were bullet fragments on the back of the skull. Dr. Gerald McDonnell, an HSCA medical consultant, identified a bullet fragment near the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. He noted it was embedded between the galea and the outer table of the skull (the galea is a tough fibrous layer of tissue in the lower part of the scalp):
--- Quote ---A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table. (“Report of G.M. McDonnel,” August 4, 1978, p. 2, reprinted in 7 HSCA 217-220)
--- End quote ---
The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.
Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, identified a bullet fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays.
Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have identified the McDonnell fragment and also two other fragments on the back of the skull on the AP and later skull x-rays, and have confirmed their existence with optical-density (OD) measurements. The two other fragments are within the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object, and those two fragments are the main subject of this thread, since their presence and metallic content have been confirmed by OD measurements.
People can go back and read my attempts to get you to explain how an FMJ bullet could have deposited a single bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less three.
The majority on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) said that it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a single fragment at/near the entry wound on a skull, and, revealingly, not one of them cited a single case where an FMJ bullet has done so. No wonder the FPP ignored the McDonnell fragment. They knew they could not explain it.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on May 29, 2025, 07:51:54 PM ---I've already proved, in this thread, that there were bullet fragments on the back of the skull. Dr. Gerald McDonnell, an HSCA medical consultant, identified a bullet fragment near the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. He noted it was embedded between the galea and the outer table of the skull (the galea is a tough fibrous layer of tissue in the lower part of the scalp):
The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.
Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, identified a bullet fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays.
Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have identified the McDonnell fragment and also two other fragments on the back of the skull on the AP and later skull x-rays, and have confirmed their existence with optical-density (OD) measurements. The two other fragments are within the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object, and those two fragments are the main subject of this thread, since their presence and metallic content have been confirmed by OD measurements.
People can go back and read my attempts to get you to explain how an FMJ bullet could have deposited a single bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less three.
The majority on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) said that it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a single fragment at/near the entry wound on a skull, and, revealingly, not one of them cited a single case where an FMJ bullet has done so. No wonder the FPP ignored the McDonnell fragment. They knew they could not explain it.
--- End quote ---
Dear Mike,
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-- Tom
Michael T. Griffith:
Just to be clear, as I've explained before: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm (0.40 inches, or 4/10ths of an inch) below the debunked cowlick entry site. OD measurements confirm that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet (pp. 184-186).
There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:
--- Quote ---A small metallic fragment lies medial to the fracture site between the galea and the outer table of the skull. . . . A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table.
--- End quote ---
The discovery of the McDonnell fragment was significant. The HSCA FPP simply ignored this crucial discovery. Since the fragment is to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, it is also 1 cm below the cowlick site. Three questions come to mind:
One, how would a bullet striking the skull at a downward angle have sheared off two fragments below the entry site? As firearms expert Howard Donahue noted, basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing would have occurred at the top of the entry site, since the bullet was striking at a downward angle.
Two, how would either of these supposedly sheared-off fragments have ended up 1 cm below the entry site if the bullet struck the skull at a downward angle?
Three, how would one fragment end up on the outer table of the skull and the other fragment end up between the outer table and the galea? The area between the galea and the outer table is the pericranium. The galea and pericranium are both dense, tough fibrous membranes that cover the outer table (they are a separated by the loose areolar layer, a weak and flexible layer). One of the fragments plowed through both the galea and the pericranium and embedded in the outer table, while the other plowed through the galea but stopped in the pericranium. How in the world could this have happened if both fragments were sheared off?
Obviously, the two fragments were not sheared off but hit the skull at different velocities and at a perpendicular angle, causing one to penetrate more deeply than the other, which is exactly what you'd expect from ricochet fragments.
It is obvious why the HSCA FPP majority did not want to deal with the McDonnell fragment. Only Dr. Wecht raised the issue that FMJ bullets do not shear off fragments at the entry point. This is undoubtedly why the FPP majority felt obliged to make the awkward claim/admission that it is "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this manner. Revealingly, they failed to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done this. None of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics tests did this, and no FMJ bullet in any subsequent test has done this. It is simply unheard of. As Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has said,
--- Quote ---A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull. (pp. 184-185)
--- End quote ---
Surely the FPP majority knew this as well. They knew that claiming that two fragments sheared off the alleged FMJ bullet and then somehow ended up in different layers would be untenable and non-credible, so they ignored the McDonnell fragment.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on May 30, 2025, 01:42:05 PM ---Just to be clear, as I've explained before: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm (0.40 inches, or 4/10ths of an inch) below the debunked cowlick entry site. OD measurements confirm that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet (pp. 184-186).
There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:
The discovery of the McDonnell fragment was significant. The HSCA FPP simply ignored this crucial discovery. Since the fragment is to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, it is also 1 cm below the cowlick site. Three questions come to mind:
One, how would a bullet striking the skull at a downward angle have sheared off two fragments below the entry site? As firearms expert Howard Donahue noted, basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing would have occurred at the top of the entry site, since the bullet was striking at a downward angle.
Two, how would either of these supposedly sheared-off fragments have ended up 1 cm below the entry site if the bullet struck the skull at a downward angle?
Three, how would one fragment end up on the outer table of the skull and the other fragment end up between the outer table and the galea? The area between the galea and the outer table is the pericranium. The galea and pericranium are both dense, tough fibrous membranes that cover the outer table (they are a separated by the loose areolar layer, a weak and flexible layer). One of the fragments plowed through both the galea and the pericranium and embedded in the outer table, while the other plowed through the galea but stopped in the pericranium. How in the world could this have happened if both fragments were sheared off?
Obviously, the two fragments were not sheared off but hit the skull at different velocities and at a perpendicular angle, causing one to penetrate more deeply than the other, which is exactly what you'd expect from ricochet fragments.
It is obvious why the HSCA FPP majority did not want to deal with the McDonnell fragment. Only Dr. Wecht raised the issue that FMJ bullets do not shear off fragments at the entry point. This is undoubtedly why the FPP majority felt obliged to make the awkward claim/admission that it is "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this manner. Revealingly, they failed to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done this. None of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics tests did this, and no FMJ bullet in any subsequent test has done this. It is simply unheard of. As Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has said,
Surely the FPP majority knew this as well. They knew that claiming that two fragments sheared off the alleged FMJ bullet and then somehow ended up in different layers would be untenable and non-credible, so they ignored the McDonnell fragment.
--- End quote ---
Dear Michael,
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-- Tom
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on May 30, 2025, 04:13:29 PM ---Dear Michael, How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up? Just a few, or oodles and gobs? -- Tom
--- End quote ---
This is your response to the hard scientific evidence that the bullet fragments in the back of the head could not have come from the kind of ammo Oswald allegedly used?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version