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

Author Topic: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments  (Read 91614 times)

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #232 on: July 12, 2025, 12:06:47 AM »
Advertisement
Oswald's first shot at pseudo Z105-110 ricocheted off the overhead signal arm & the jacket split off into two pieces and were found in the limo.

LOL!

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #232 on: July 12, 2025, 12:06:47 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #233 on: July 12, 2025, 12:26:30 AM »
Sorry, but this is total fiction. Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less multiple fragments, at/near the entry point when striking a skull.
And you get this bit of wisdom from where, exactly?

Online Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #234 on: July 12, 2025, 01:20:40 AM »
Where does this come from? Can you point to any experiments that support this?

Why is this scenario not possible?:  The FMJ bullet deforms upon striking the skull.  As the bullet penetrates the skull, the part of the bullet behind the nose compresses into the nose.  The back of the WC 6.5 mm bullet is not enclosed so the compression on the nose can cause bits of lead to spill out of the butt-end as the front part of the bullet passes through the skull. (When the bullet is compressed the temperature of the bullet increases so this lead could be in a softened or possibly a liquid state). These bits of lead don't make it through the hole in the skull created by the bullet nose impact so they end up on the outside surface.

Andrew, there were not two fragments imbedded in the back of the skull. Those who examined the X-rays and said that there was even one fragment there were wrong. The "6.5mm" radio-opaque object seen in the anterior X-Ray view was the 7mm x 2mm lead fragment removed by Humes.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #234 on: July 12, 2025, 01:20:40 AM »


Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #235 on: July 14, 2025, 03:02:16 PM »
Andrew, there were not two fragments imbedded in the back of the skull. Those who examined the X-rays and said that there was even one fragment there were wrong. The "6.5mm" radio-opaque object seen in the anterior X-Ray view was the 7mm x 2mm lead fragment removed by Humes.

I've already proved in this thread that these claims are erroneous, inexcusably erroneous. It is amazing that you are still repeating them. I guess you're hoping that new readers won't bother to read our previous exchanges in this thread?

You may want to review some actual tests.  Here is a video showing an FMJ bullet going though an iron plate:

What does this test have to do with the subject at hand? You may want to review some tests that are actually relevant, i.e., the WC's wound ballistics test, Lattimer's wound ballistics test, and the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, all of which proved that FMJ bullets will never deposit fragments at/near the entry point on a skull. Citing a test where an FMJ bullet went through an iron plate has nothing to do with an FMJ bullet entering and exiting a human skull.

And you get this bit of wisdom from where, exactly?

Umm, how about the sources I listed in that same reply, for starters? How about the above-mentioned wound ballistics tests? How about the fact that nowhere in published forensic cases will you find a case where an FMJ bullet deposited a single fragment, much less two or more, at or near the entry point on a skull?

And I notice none of you are tackling the stunning absence of the low fragment trail on the autopsy skull x-rays and the equally stunning absence of any mention of the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, not to mention the autopsy doctors' 1966 five-hour review of the autopsy materials and their failure to note the high fragment trail and their assertion that the materials they reviewed confirmed the autopsy report.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2025, 03:07:20 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #236 on: July 14, 2025, 07:35:56 PM »
I've already proved in this thread that these claims are erroneous, inexcusably erroneous. It is amazing that you are still repeating them. I guess you're hoping that new readers won't bother to read our previous exchanges in this thread?



The red arrow in that right lateral view points to a fragment that appears to be imbedded in the frontal skull bone. Where is that fragment in the anterior view? Where is the 7mm x 2mm fragment in the anterior view?



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #236 on: July 14, 2025, 07:35:56 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #237 on: July 15, 2025, 01:02:03 AM »
MT: And you get this bit of wisdom from where, exactly?

Umm, how about the sources I listed in that same reply, for starters? How about the above-mentioned wound ballistics tests? How about the fact that nowhere in published forensic cases will you find a case where an FMJ bullet deposited a single fragment, much less two or more, at or near the entry point on a skull?

And I notice none of you are tackling the stunning absence of the low fragment trail on the autopsy skull x-rays and the equally stunning absence of any mention of the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, not to mention the autopsy doctors' 1966 five-hour review of the autopsy materials and their failure to note the high fragment trail and their assertion that the materials they reviewed confirmed the autopsy report.
Of your sources, Drs Smith and Fillinger only said that they had not seen it, not that it had never happened in all medical forensic history. Dr Green only said that "it would generally not occur," which implies that it does. Dr Berg was the only one to deliver an unequivocal "No", referencing DiMaio's [Gunshot Wounds. But DiMaio has this to say about the subject:

"In gunshot wounds of the skull, a large fragment of lead may be deposited between the scalp and the outer table of the skull at the entrance site. This piece of lead is sheared off the bullet as it enters. With lead .32 revolver bullets and less commonly with .38 bullets, this fragment often has a “C” or comma-shaped configuration (Figure 11.7). Rarely, the tip of the jacket of a full metal jacketed bullet is so deposited." (DiMaio, Gunshot Wounds:  Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, 2nd Ed. Ch 11)

That is, Berg's source directly contradicts Berg's position. And says that FMJ bullets do indeed shear off bits on the outer table.

So, I'm still wondering where you got the idea that "no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less multiple fragments, at/near the entry point when striking a skull."

????


« Last Edit: July 15, 2025, 01:06:26 AM by Mitch Todd »

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #238 on: July 15, 2025, 01:42:51 PM »

The red arrow in that right lateral view points to a fragment that appears to be imbedded in the frontal skull bone. Where is that fragment in the anterior view? Where is the 7mm x 2mm fragment in the anterior view?

This is just silly. I already refuted this silliness. Please go back and read my previous replies on this issue. You are blundering horrendously.

Of your sources, Drs Smith and Fillinger only said that they had not seen it, not that it had never happened in all medical forensic history. Dr Green only said that "it would generally not occur," which implies that it does. Dr Berg was the only one to deliver an unequivocal "No", referencing DiMaio's [Gunshot Wounds.

You're quoting from my section on whether FMJ bullets leave numerous fragments inside a skull, not whether they ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull. This is another severe problem with the lone-gunman scenario: FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls. The FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did not do this. Nor did the FMJ bullets in Lattimer's test. Nor did the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test.

But DiMaio has this to say about the subject:

"In gunshot wounds of the skull, a large fragment of lead may be deposited between the scalp and the outer table of the skull at the entrance site. This piece of lead is sheared off the bullet as it enters. With lead .32 revolver bullets and less commonly with .38 bullets, this fragment often has a “C” or comma-shaped configuration (Figure 11.7). Rarely, the tip of the jacket of a full metal jacketed bullet is so deposited." (DiMaio, Gunshot Wounds:  Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, 2nd Ed. Ch 11)

That is, Berg's source directly contradicts Berg's position. And says that FMJ bullets do indeed shear off bits on the outer table.

I will charitably assume that you made an honest mistake here and simply failed to read the surrounding paragraphs and did not realize you were misrepresenting what DiMaoi said. Here's what DiMaoi said about FMJ bullets leaving numerous fragments (a "snowstorm") inside a skull (which we see in the right front on JFK's lateral autopsy x-ray):

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 thetype 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.
(Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added).

Did you just miss this? He specifically says that when FMJ bullets do fragment inside skulls, they leave "few" fragments, and that if the x-rays show numerous fragments ("lead snowstorm") this "rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition."

So Berg was not misrepresenting DiMaio. You are. DiMaio said that on those rare occasins when FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls they will produce "few" fragments, and that if x-rays show numerous fragments in the skull, this "rules out" FMJ ammo as the culprit. JFK's skull x-rays show a "snowstorm" of some 40 small fragments in the right-frontal area, which rules out FMJ ammo.

Now, as for DiMaio's statement about fragments being left at the entry site on skulls, he is clearly focusing on lead bullets fired from pistols. Then, he says that in rare cases ("rarely") the tip of an FMJ bullet will be deposited at the entry site, which has nothing to do with the fragments deposited on the outer table of JFK's skull because the nose and tail of the alleged offending FMJ bullet were recovered, which means those fragments would have to be from the cross-section of an FMJ bullet, a physical impossibility, as even wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has acknowledged.

I thought we all already knew that the nose and tail of the alleged Oswald FMJ headshot bullet were recovered and that therefore any fragments deposited near/at the entry site would have to come from the bullet's cross-section (composed of lead).

Here's what S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n said about this in 1998 in explaining why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment:

I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section
from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed,
after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces,
but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination
Paradoxes
, KDP, 2022, p. 21)

In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n explains the 6.5 mm "fragment" seen on the autopsy x-rays cannot be from an FMJ bullet in response to Dr. Michael Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence for the debunked cowlick entry site:

It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the
obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's]
proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not
fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete
enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot
break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (pp. 184-185)

So, I'm still wondering where you got the idea that "no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less multiple fragments, at/near the entry point when striking a skull."

I trust you're no longer wondering about this.

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) majority were aware of this problem in relation to the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. They had to address the issue thanks to Howard Donahue and Dr. Wecht. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a fragment at/near the entry site on a skull, yet they did not cite a single case where this had occurred, either in their own experience or in cases documented in forensic literature. The FPP consisted of nine experienced forensic pathologists, yet none of them said they had ever seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner, and they did not cite a single case published in forensic literature where this had occurred.

To avoid strained nit-picking, I guess I should clarify that never in the history of forensic science has an FMJ bullet deposited a fragment from its cross-section at/near the entry site on a skull. According to the lone-gunman theory, an FMJ bullet performed this impossible feat, and later its nose and tail were recovered from the limousine.









« Last Edit: July 15, 2025, 05:20:03 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #239 on: July 15, 2025, 05:33:24 PM »
This is just silly. I already refuted this silliness. Please go back and read my previous replies on this issue. You are blundering horrendously.

You didn't refute anything. What you did was claim that the fragment imbedded in the forehead was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes. Which is itself silliness, considering that the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes was in the brain behind the right eye.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #239 on: July 15, 2025, 05:33:24 PM »