MG: 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.
I'm quoting the document that you referred me to, specifically the section titled "Shearing, FMJ Missiles, and the 6.5 mm Fragment in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." The one that sayd things like:
"Ballistics expert and court-certified firearms expert Howard Donahue pointed out it was highly unlikely the 6.5 mm object seen in the x-rays could have come from the kind of ammunition allegedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald"
"Donahue interviewed several forensic pathologists about this subject, including Dr. Thomas Smith. All of them said they had never heard of an FMJ bullet behaving in this manner and that they considered such a scenario highly unlikely"
"(via Dr Fillinger) One can appreciate the fact that going through bone, which is not as hard as steel, may etch or scratch it, but it's not going to peel off much metal."
And the question you asked of Drs Green and Berg, ". Have you ever heard of an FMJ missile depositing a sizable bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull near the entry wound (i.e., as a result of the fragment being scraped off the jacket as the bullet entered the skull)?" To which Green replied "I think that it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone."
Given all that, how on God's green earth could I have ever mistakenly thought that the section of text entitled "Shearing, FMJ Missiles, and the 6.5 mm Fragment in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays" would have anything to do with a bullet "ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull?"
Do you not actually know what you wrote right there?
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).
MG: 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 DiMiao said.
I misrepresented nothing. DiMaio said, "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. (...) Rarely, the tip of the jacket of a full metal jacketed bullet is so deposited." This statement is self-contained and does not rely on any other statement in his book. It is direct, consicse...and inescapable. Your attempt to shoehorn a "snowstorm" and these other things into the conversation is nothing more than your attempt to create a smokescreen by burning a pile of red herrings. 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.
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.
DiMiao himself was retained as a medical forensics expert by the ARRB. What did he say then about the case?
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.
MG: 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).
In the immortal words of Tonto: "What you mean by 'we,' Kimo Sabe?" CE567 represents part of the forward section of the bullet, but not all off it. Most of the tip and the adjacent areas thereto are missing, enough to account for the 6.5mm opacity.
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.
MG: 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
So what? the issue at hand is where you go the notion 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." Whether or not S+erdivan ever saw such a thing is immaterial if others, i.e. DiMaio or the FPP, have.
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).
MG: 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.
I doubt the FPP had any idea who Donahue was at the time. And Wecht's contemporaneous views are recorded in his testimony to HSCA as well as his dissenting screed appended to the FPPs report. I do not recall him bringing up this particular issue in either.
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).
MG: I trust you're no longer wondering about this.
The only thing I'm wondering is, where you keep your head at.
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.
