JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

<< < (53/56) > >>

Tim Nickerson:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 22, 2025, 12:49:43 PM ---Gunn's letter makes it clear that DiMaio did not comment on the cause of the wounds but only on the quality and nature of the autopsy photos, which is perhaps why he was not listed in the index of ARRB interviews. It is odd that he was not listed in the next of interviews. Even though he didn't offer forensic observations about the wounds, he was interviewed and should have been listed.

--- End quote ---

What expertise of DiMaio's was he called upon to employ when asked to view the autopsy photos and X-Rays? He was a forensic pathologist, specializing in gunshot wounds. He was asked to inspect the images for the information contained within them.

Tim Nickerson:

--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on July 25, 2025, 03:31:14 AM ---In 1964 Olivier found no Carcano fragmentation inside 10 test human skulls filled with jelly.
In just one test the Carcano broke into 3 large pieces, after passing throo the skull.
--- End quote ---

That is FALSE.


--- Quote ---All 10 tests were made 4" lower than the actual trajectory in 1963.
--- End quote ---

That is FALSE.


--- Quote ---Some of the 10 tests exited via thick eye or nose bone.
Cyril Wecht agreed that a Carcano will not explode or disintegrate into dozens of pieces but can break into 2 or 3 pieces, and that the 1963 bullet behaved like a soft point or hollow point.
It was an accident, Hickey was just doing his job.

--- End quote ---

Wecht was wrong. So was Donahue.

Marjan Rynkiewicz:

--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 25, 2025, 03:39:28 AM ---That is FALSE.

That is FALSE.

Wecht was wrong. So was Donahue.

--- End quote ---
Allso, Olivier's ten tests were at Z313 sniper range, where the 2,200 fps was much reduced.
Hickey's 3,200 fps auto burst was at say 21 ft from muzzle to jfk.
Allso, only one of Olivier's heads were blasted offa the stand. All 10 would have blasted off if Olivier had used a hollow point AR15.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on July 25, 2025, 03:31:14 AM ---In 1964 Olivier found no Carcano fragmentation inside 10 test human skulls filled with jelly.
In just one test the Carcano broke into 3 large pieces, after passing throo the skull.
All 10 tests were made 4" lower than the actual trajectory in 1963.
Some of the 10 tests exited via thick eye or nose bone.
Cyril Wecht agreed that a Carcano will not explode or disintegrate into dozens of pieces but can break into 2 or 3 pieces, and that the 1963 bullet behaved like a soft point or hollow point.
--- End quote ---

The give-away is the test skull x-rays from Olivier's test. Even a layman can see that the fragmentation caused by Olivier's FMJ bullets bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays, as I've explained previously.

In the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, the FMJ bullets only broke into a few fragments.

And, as proved earlier, DiMaio categorically ruled out FMJ bullets in cases where x-rays show a large concentration of dozens of small fragments (he used the term "snow storm").


--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on July 25, 2025, 03:31:14 AM ---It was an accident, Hickey was just doing his job.
--- End quote ---

But if Hickey fired and hit the skull, the snow storm of tiny fragments would be near the entry point, not on the opposite end of the skull. The right-frontal snow storm seen on the JFK skull x-rays is a clear indication that a high-velocity frangible bullet struck JFK in the right front (just beyond the hairline).

The morticians saw a small hole in the front part of the right frontal bone and just inside the hairline. Mortician Tom Robinson noted it but assumed it was an exit hole made by a fragment. The JFK skull x-rays show an apparent wound notch right in this area, in the correct place to have caused the right-frontal snow storm, as several doctors have noted.

In a revealing and important admission, Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n, the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, in arguing against a right-frontal shot, stated that if a frangible bullet had struck in the right front, the skull x-rays would show a concentration of fragments near the entry point. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n was unaware that the skull x-rays show just such a right-frontal concentration because he was misled by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). The FPP published an enhanced version of the skull x-rays that washed out the right-frontal snow storm, but did not publish the unenhanced version in which the snow storm is plainly visible.

However, when this fact was brought to S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n's attention, he still rejected a right-frontal shot. He is a good example of an expert who lets his bias get in the way of his analysis when the facts overturn his preferred version of the shooting. He felt confident in citing the enhanced skull x-rays as proof there was no right-frontal shot. He did not imagine that the FPP would so blatantly manipulate crucial evidence. Yet, when he learned the facts of the matter, he still refused to acknowledge the evidence of a right-frontal shot, even though he had previously said that such a shot would produce a snow storm of fragments near the entry point.

I devote an entire chapter to the evidence of a right-frontal shot in my 2023 book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.









 

Mitch Todd:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 21, 2025, 01:56:47 PM ---The point is that you ignored DiMaio's point that on those rare occasions when an FMJ bullet will deposit anything at the entry wound on a skull, it will be from the tip--not from the cross-section. The point is also that you ignored DiMaio's clear, unambiguous point that if an x-ray shows a cluster ("snow storm") of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo. My two previous replies quote DiMaio on these points (see also below).

This is downright delusional. Let's read, yet again, what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets leaving fragments:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,
they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point
the bullet perforated bone. (p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small
fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-
jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed
centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be
seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.

One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of
weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting
ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4].
In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine
“dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle
ammunition or a shotgun slug. (p. 318, emphasis added)

Man alive, are we clear now? Is there any doubt about what DiMaio said on this key point? Or are you going to keep pretending not to understand DiMaio's plain English?

In the JFK skull x-rays, we see a snow storm of some 40 tiny fragments in the right frontal region, the exact opposite of what DiMaio says we'll see with FMJ bullets. It is just that simple and that devastating. The fragmentation pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays is typical of what we'd expect to see from the impact of a high-velocity frangible bullet, not an FMJ bullet. 

The three ARRB forensic consultants were Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, and Dr. Robert Kirschner. DiMaio is not listed as an ARRB contact in the ARRB materials.

These arguments are years behind the information curve.

One, even Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n, a devout WC defender, acknowledges that the 6.5 mm object would have to be from the cross-section if it came from the FMJ bullet whose nose and tail were reportedly recovered from the limo.

Two, the 6.5 mm object is not a fragment at all but a ghosted image placed over the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and several particles. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the image was ghosted. OD measurements of the 6.5 mm object prove it is impossibly dense and cannot be metallic, which is why the object does not appear on the lateral x-ray. There is a fragment on the lateral x-ray, but its density is much lower than that of the 6.5 mm object. Indeed, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurements prove that if it were metallic, it would be even thicker/denser than JFK's largest dental fillings.

The FPP did not cite a single case to support their claim, and DiMaio said that on the rare occasions when an FMJ bullet will leave a fragment at the entry point on a skull, it will be from the tip.

Furthermore, DiMaio's statement does not describe what we're talking about with JFK's skull. There are two fragments on the back of the skull in the JFK skull x-rays--the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. There are also tiny particles near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, which are also inside the 6.5 mm image. The McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment are not at the entry site but are 1 cm below it, and one of them (McDonnel frag) is not only below it but also horizontal to it. This has nothing to do with what DiMaio was talking about.

What's more, the cowlick entry site has been debunked, as S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has proved. The nearest entry site to the 6.5 mm object is nearly 4 inches lower on the skull. The back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments from the bullet that struck the pavement early in the shooting.

I defy you to find me a single case in forensic history where an FMJ bullet approaching at a downward angle "sheared off" two fragments and several particles 1 cm below the entry point. It is sheer fiction (pun intended).

You are again misinformed. Donahue spoke with four members of the FPP (Baden, Davis, Rose, and Spitz), had extensive contact with HSCA staffers, and his theory received news coverage shortly after the HSCA was formed. Donahue devoted an entire chapter to his dealings with the HSCA in his book Mortal Error (chapter 11). The FPP were completely aware of Donahue's points about the problems with assuming a downward-traveling FMJ bullet would deposit a fragment from its cross-section 1 cm below the entry point. They were also aware of his valid point that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet would not and could not create a 6.0 mm entry wound but would create a larger entry wound (the autopsy report says the entry wound was 6 mm in diameter).

You should be wondering how you can keep making the same claims in the face of so much contrary determinative evidence.

Just to recap the facts:

-- The history of forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet striking a skull at a downward angle has "sheared off" two fragments and several particles and somehow left them 1 cm below the entry point--not at the entry point, but 1 cm below it, with one of the fragments being both below and lateral to it. Basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing from a bullet striking at a downward angle would occur at the top of the entry point, not below it.

-- Forensic experts tell us that an FMJ bullet will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and leave a cluster ("snow storm") of numerous small fragments inside a skull. There is still no known case where an FMJ bullet has done this.

-- The test skull x-rays of the WC's wound ballistics test alone refute the idea that an FMJ bullet struck JFK's skull. Those x-rays show minimal fragmentation and a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like what we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

-- The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics tests failed to shatter into dozens of fragments, much less leave two or more fragments below and lateral to the entry point.

-- Lattimer's wound ballistics test, for what it's worth given Lattimer shady record, failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. None of his FMJ bullets deposited two fragments and several particles 1 cm below and lateral to the entry point. Also, his FMJ bullets' fragmentation pattern was the exact opposite of the pattern described in the autopsy report.

I should add that Lattimer, oblivious that he was making a fatal admission, stated that his FMJ bullets removed "almost the entire right hemisphere of the brain," which he said was what the JFK skull x-rays show (p. 30)! But Dr. Michael Baden swore up and down that the autopsy brain photos show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter! Moreover, neither the autopsy doctors nor the HSCA FPP said the x-rays show most of the right hemisphere of the brain missing.

But Lattimer was correct: The x-rays do in fact show most of the right hemisphere of the brain missing, but government-hired experts have refused to admit it because the brain photos show a virtually intact brain. The brain photos show a large cut in the brain along the length of the brain from front to back, but they show virtually no missing tissue, which is why Baden insisted to Bugliosi that only "an ounce or two" of brain tissue was missing from the brain. And, Dr. Mantik has confirmed via OD measurements that the x-rays show a large portion of the right side of the brain to be missing. Obviously, those brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.

We know that brain matter from JFK's brain was blown onto over a dozen surfaces. Brain matter and blood hit Officer Hargis so hard that he initially thought he had been hit. There was brain matter all over the inside of the limo. There was also brain matter splattered onto the windshield of the follow-up car. Some brain matter was even splattered onto one of the agents riding in the follow-up car. Yet, the autopsy report says the brain weighed an impossible 1,500 grams, and the brain photos show no more than "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter.

--- End quote ---

MG: The point is that you ignored DiMaio's point that on those rare occasions when an FMJ bullet will deposit anything at the entry wound on a skull, it will be from the tip--not from the cross-section.

I ignored nothing. The notion that the 6.5mm opacity could only represent a cross section of a bullet is a baseless assertion made by Mantik and swallowed whole by you. Take that strawman out of the equation, and all you have is, "DiMaio said the fragment would have to come from the tip of the bullet". OK. Well, the WCC 6.5mm rounds have a very blunt, almost hemispherical nose; there's plenty of metal up front on them for the tip to leave that large of a fragment. 


MG: The point is also that you ignored DiMaio's clear, unambiguous point that if an x-ray shows a cluster ("snow storm") of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo. My two previous replies quote DiMaio on these points (see also below).

You are incorrect. I addressed that already:

"Even then, DiMaio's Figure 11.4 shows a bullet that generated something like a 100 fragments, maybe more, even though it penereated the soft tissues of the abdomen and didn't strike bone. JFK's x-rays, on the other hand, reveal ~20-30 fragments, even though the bullet struck the hard bone of the skull on entry. The two cases really aren't comparable other than they both involve a fragmenting bullet. Figure 11.5, shows the result of a .357 Magnum round hitting some poor soul right square in the noggin. .357 Magnum is considerably less energetic than 6.5x52 Carcano (~700 ft*lbs vs 1700 ft*lbs, respectively). However, even this less-energetic pistol round generated more fragmentation than what we see in the JFK x-rays. If anything, the example figures in DiMaio's book argue for the head wounds being caused by an FMJ bullet rather than the other way around."

That is, what DiMaio considers to be a "snow storm" is not what you want to believe is a "snow storm." Also, consider Figure 38 from Sturdivan's book. It contains two lateral head x-rays for comparison. The first is the well-known enhanced x-ray of JFK made the night of the autopsy. The second is from one of the head test shots performed as Edgewood Arsenal in 1964. The two show very similar fragmentation in terms of the number of fragments generated, the size of the fragments, and their distribution. To repeat myself, the x-rays of *actual* *instances* on gunshot impacts point towards JFK being hit in the head by an FMJ bullet rather than a soft-nosed or hollow point one, no matter what you want to bleieve that DiMiao said.

MG: The three ARRB forensic consultants were Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, and Dr. Robert Kirschner. DiMaio is not listed as an ARRB contact in the ARRB materials.

The ARRB indeed call on DiMaio, and had him go through the original autopsy materials, along with a number of different enhanced versions of individual items.
DiMaio told them there was no reason to call for a new pathology panel, because he saw nothing in the autopsy materials that would supercede or invalidate the conclusions of the earlier groups. That is, he didn't see a problem with the fragmentation as shown in the x-rays, no matter what you might think.


MG: You are again misinformed. Donahue spoke with four members of the FPP (Baden, Davis, Rose, and Spitz), had extensive contact with HSCA staffers, and his theory received news coverage shortly after the HSCA was formed. Donahue devoted an entire chapter to his dealings with the HSCA in his book Mortal Error (chapter 11). The FPP were completely aware of Donahue's points about the problems with assuming a downward-traveling FMJ bullet would deposit a fragment from its cross-section 1 cm below the entry point. They were also aware of his valid point that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet would not and could not create a 6.0 mm entry wound but would create a larger entry wound (the autopsy report says the entry wound was 6 mm in diameter).

I'm not the one who is misinformed here. Mortal Error was written by Bonar Menninger, a free-lance journalist, not by Donahue. Chapter 11 of the book, "The House Select Committee" is about the events leading up to the formation of the HSCA and its early turmoil. That chapter is not about the investigation subsequently conducted by the Committee and its various expert panels. Also, working backwards from the index entires for Baden, Davis, Rose, and Spitz, there is nothing in the book about Donahue ever meeting with any of them. Not during the HSCAs tenure, nor in the subsequent years. I find nothing in the book that would indicate that any of the FPP members knew in the 1970s about Donahue's theories. Did you actually read the book?


MG: Just to recap the facts:

You have an interesting definition of the word "facts"


MG: -- The history of forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet striking a skull at a downward angle has "sheared off" two fragments and several particles and somehow left them 1 cm below the entry point--not at the entry point, but 1 cm below it, with one of the fragments being both below and lateral to it.

To say this, you would have had to havce read though every single GSW case ever recorded. Which you simply have not done. In reality, you foolishly made a blanket claim that you got called on, and found that your initial claim was incorrect, and you should have known was incorrect, had you done the reading. So now you respond by moving the goalpoasts by adding a rediculous degree of extra qualifications. Eventually, you'll be saying "well let's see you find another case in the literature exactly like on that does this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and happened on 11/22/63....what, there is? WELL IT STILL DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A PRESIDENT!!!"  You may impress yourself with this silly game, but the rest of us see right through it.


MG: -- Forensic experts tell us that an FMJ bullet will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and leave a cluster ("snow storm") of numerous small fragments inside a skull. There is still no known case where an FMJ bullet has done this.

Pleny of "forensic experts" have reviewed the JFK x-rays and have no problem with an FMJ bullet causing the fragmentation seen in those x-rays. This includes DiMaio, Strdivan, and Wecht. As well as Baden, Loqvam, Coe, Davis, Fischer, Spitz, Rose, Oliver, etc. Like I said, what they refer to a "lead snowstorm" is not what you want to beleive is a "lead snowstorm."

 
MG: -- The test skull x-rays of the WC's wound ballistics test alone refute the idea that an FMJ bullet struck JFK's skull. Those x-rays show minimal fragmentation and a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like what we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

Again, as Figure 38 in Sturdivan's book shows, the fragmentation numbers, size, and distribution in the JFK x-rays are very similar to the Edgewod test x-rays. And very different from the x-rays provided by DiMaio in his figures 11-4 and 11-5


MG: -- Lattimer's wound ballistics test, for what it's worth given Lattimer shady record, failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. None of his FMJ bullets deposited two fragments and several particles 1 cm below and lateral to the entry point. Also, his FMJ bullets' fragmentation pattern was the exact opposite of the pattern described in the autopsy report.
 
IIRC, Lattimer's tests used skulls filled with loose animal tissue and/or white paint which were disgorged --along with any contained fragments-- when the skull fragmented on impact. Also, IIRC, Lattimer only x-rayed the bone itself, not the entire skulls. Also, his target skulls weren't covered with a scalp analogue to help hold any exteral fragments in place. There is no reason, then, to assume that he would have x-rays showing fragmentation patterns exactly like that seen in JFK's x-rays.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page