JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on May 30, 2025, 04:32:01 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
Dear Mike,
Why are you afraid to answer the question?
It was a conspiracy, right?
Well, how many people, plus-or-minus 10 or so, do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up?
-- Tom
PS Okay, plus-or-minus 100.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on January 20, 2023, 09:44:51 PM ---Is it really sufficient to argue that CE399 could possibly have gone through both men and caused all those wounds if there is no evidence that it did?
--- End quote ---
Iacoletti,
By "no evidence" do you mean there's no high-speed film showing its penetrating JBC's wrist backwards, . . . that sort of thing?
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on May 30, 2025, 04:38:50 PM ---Dear Mike, Why are you afraid to answer the question? It was a conspiracy, right? Well, how many people, plus-or-minus 10 or so, do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up? -- Tom. PS. Okay, plus-or-minus 100.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I'm not at all afraid to answer your diversionary question, but your question is just that: diversionary. You seem unwilling to deal with the hard scientific evidence that the back-of-head bullet fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
That being said, I'll answer your diversionary question: My personal belief is that approximately 30 people were involved in the planning and execution of the assassination. As for the number of people who were involved in the cover-up, that is a much more complex issue (1) because some of those people were led to believe it was vital for national security to blame the shooting on a lone gunman who acted solely on his own, and (2) because some of them were military personnel or federal agents who were ordered to do what they did (and some of them were forced to sign a gag order). As just one example of the latter, Dr. Finck failed to examine JFK's clothing, a standard and crucial autopsy procedure in this kind of gunshot case, because a senior military officer prohibited him from doing so, and that same senior officer then refused Dr. Finck's request to mark the autopsy protocol as incomplete. If I had to guess the number of people who knowingly, willingly, and maliciously took part in the cover-up and knew they were helping to conceal an assassination conspiracy, I would estimate that about 15 or 20 people did so.
Now, to return to the subject of the thread, it is worth noting that in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, not one of the FMJ bullets deposited a single fragment at or near the entry wound on the skulls. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did this either. Dr. Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged that he has never seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner. As also mentioned, the HSCA FPP majority claimed it was "rare" for an FMJ bullet to do this--and, revealingly, they did not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done so.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 02, 2025, 03:12:30 PM ---Oh, I'm not at all afraid to answer your diversionary question, but your question is just that: diversionary. You seem unwilling to deal with the hard scientific evidence that the back-of-head bullet fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
That being said, I'll answer your diversionary question: My personal belief is that approximately 30 people were involved in the planning and execution of the assassination. As for the number of people who were involved in the cover-up, that is a much more complex issue (1) because some of those people were led to believe it was vital for national security to blame the shooting on a lone gunman who acted solely on his own, and (2) because some of them were military personnel or federal agents who were ordered to do what they did (and some of them were forced to sign a gag order). As just one example of the latter, Dr. Finck failed to examine JFK's clothing, a standard and crucial autopsy procedure in this kind of gunshot case, because a senior military officer prohibited him from doing so, and that same senior officer then refused Dr. Finck's request to mark the autopsy protocol as incomplete. If I had to guess the number of people who knowingly, willingly, and maliciously took part in the cover-up and knew they were helping to conceal an assassination conspiracy, I would estimate that about 15 or 20 people did so.
Now, to return to the subject of the thread, it is worth noting that in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, not one of the FMJ bullets deposited a single fragment at or near the entry wound on the skulls. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did this either. Dr. Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged that he has never seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner. As also mentioned, the HSCA FPP majority claimed it was "rare" for an FMJ bullet to do this--and, revealingly, they did not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done so.
--- End quote ---
Just 15 or 20, huh? Have you thought this through?
Regardless, what makes you think that the "two fragments" you're concerned about were deposited by a bullet or bullets at the back of JFK's skull?
Michael T. Griffith:
Another point that needs to be repeated is that the autopsy report describes a fragment trail that runs from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and that this fragment trail is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The idea that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the fragment trail seen near the top of the head on the extant skull x-rays boggles the mind. A first-year medical student could not have committed such an astounding error. Radiologist Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA that the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the alleged cowlick entry site, which means it is 16 cm above the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report.
Yet, the autopsy doctors said that a fragment trail ran upward from the EOP entry site to a spot slightly above the right eye.
And, amazingly, the autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about a fragment trail near the top of the head. A first-year med student could not have confused one for the other.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version