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

[Mitch Todd]

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.

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.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

Let me refresh your memory. Even Sturdivan acknowledged that if the 6.5 mm object was an FMJ bullet fragment, it would had to come from the cross-section, and that there is no way this could have happened in this case. I've already quoted S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n's statement that the 6.5 mm object cannot be from the cross-section of an FMJ bullet, and his statement that no FMJ bullet would deposit fragments on the outer table of the skull. Let's read him again, shall we?

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)

Does this refresh your memory?

There is no way the alleged FMJ head-shot bullet could have deposited the circular 6.5 mm object and the McDonnel fragment from its nose on the outer table of the skull, especially since a good chunk of this bullet's nose was allegedly recovered from the limousine. And, pray tell, how would those fragments have ended up 1 cm below the alleged entry point?

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.

First, I suggest you go back and read what S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n said about this. I just quoted it.

Then, force yourself to come to grips with the scientific proof that the 6.5 mm object is not a bullet fragment. This has been established by multiple optical-density measurements, one done by a board-certified radiation oncologist and physicist who's been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and the other by a board-certified neurologist with over 20 years of experience in neurology.

Then, force yourself to explain the McDonnel fragment, which is 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and lateral to the 6.5 mm object. Do tell us how an FMJ bullet would have "sheared off" the McDonnel fragment from its bottom while striking the skull at a downward angle and then magically deposited the fragment 1 cm below the entry point. Let's hear it. Cue the Twilight Zone music.

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."

This is a mix of sophistry and evasion. Dr. Eric Berg, a forensic pathologist, reads DiMaio's statements the same way I do, and he even quotes DiMaio's statement about the implications of a lead snowstorm in x-rays. Dr. Berg also flatly rules out the idea that an FMJ bullet would shear off a fragment on the outer table of the skull (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view, pp. 3-4).

Anyone who reads DiMaio's book will see that you are misrepresenting his position and misreading his statements. Let's read DiMaio again:

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)

Why do you keep ignoring his plain English? Dr. Berg doesn't have any trouble understanding DiMaio's plain English. Why do you? BTW, a little bit about Dr. Berg:

He has subspecialties in forensic/autopsy, anatomic pathology, and clinical pathology. He did an internship and residency at William Beaumont Army Medical Center, followed by a fellowship in forensic pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. He is certified by the American Board of Pathology in both anatomic and clinical pathology, and forensic pathology. Why don't you contact him and tell him he is misreading DiMaio?!

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.

You are misrepresenting what those x-rays show. They do not show "similar fragmentation." That is utter nonsense.  More on this in a moment.

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.

You're again misrepresenting the facts, and I find it hard to believe that you did so accidentally. Let's read the ARRB interview summary:

Finally, you did not recommend that a panel be convened at this time, inasmuch
as the additional visual evidence is not now sufficient that a panel would be able
to reach any conclusions with a sufficient degree of scientific certainty.
(https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/S-ADM-G/GUNN/CORRESP/DIMAIO.B11.pdf)

Not one blessed word about DiMaoi saying he saw "nothing in the autopsy materials that would supercede [sic] or invalidate the conclusions of the earlier groups." You just made that up.

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.

Uh, partner, I knew Howard Donahue. Yes, of course Menninger served as the writer and editor, but he did so on Donahue's behalf and in close consultation with him. Donahue provided Menninger with all of his research material, consulted with him frequently during the writing process, and reviewed the final manuscript and approved it. Ask Bonar Menninger and he'll confirm this. Many other people would have listed themselves as the author and then added "with Bonar Menninger," but Donahue chose not to do this.

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?

Wow! Have you read the book?! Donahue mentions his correspondence with Davis, Rose, Baden, and Spitz. How did you miss this?

And, again, early in the HSCA investigation, Donahue's theory received major newspaper coverage.

MG: Just to recap the facts:

You have an interesting definition of the word "facts"

Facts are things you don't seem to like.

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.

Oh, really?! Since I must have missed it, can you remind me which one of your replies has presented a case where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull and deposited two fragments on the outer table of the skull 1 cm below the entry point? Sorry, in looking through your previous replies, I just don't see where you discuss any such case.

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.

Actually, any objective person reading our exchanges can readily see your sophistry, misrepresentation, and evasion. What "extra qualifications" You mean the key components of the lone-gunman theory of the head shot???

Let me repeat my blanket statement: No FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has shattered into dozens of fragments after penetrating a human skull. That is absolutely true. As we have seen, DiMaio categorically said that any x-ray that shows a snow storm of lead fragments rules out FMJ ammo as the ammo, and that on those "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do leave fragments after hitting bone, the fragments will be "very sparse in number."

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."

One, DiMaio never said he had no problem with the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. As the ARRB interview memo makes clear, he was never asked to comment on those kinds of issues, and he did not volunteer any comments about JFK's head wounds.

Two, Wecht specifically said that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of fragments inside a skull. Let's read what Wecht said, shall we?

It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully
jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not
explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments
or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you
say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with
you. I've been saying that for a long time. (Mortal Error, p. 231)

Let me guess: You "missed" that statement when you read Mortal Error, right?

Olivier (not "Oliver") told Howard Donahue that his test bullets broke up into only a few fragments, and Olivier's WC testimony contains some bright red flags about the integrity of the exhibits he was being asked to discuss. As I've mentioned, at one point, after Specter asked if the two exhibits showing the test-ammo fragments contained the same fragments, Olivier said they were "supposed to" and then Specter felt compelled to take him off-the-record.

Also, as I've proved, and as Howard Roffman originally noted, the test-skull x-rays show fragmentation that bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. You'd have to be legally blind not to see this.

As for Baden, Loquvam (not "Loqvam"), Coe, Davis, Fischer, Spitz, Rose, you must be kidding. Why didn't any of them cite a single case to back up their claim that the 6.5 mm object could have come from an FMJ bullet? Huh? Similarly, when Wecht challenged them to produce a single case that even approximately duplicated the SBT, they could not do so. The FPP majority knew that assuming the 6.5 mm object came from an FMJ missile was debatable, which is why they claimed that on "rare" occasions FMJ bullets had behaved in this manner. Yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single case to support this claim.

Find me one case where an FMJ bullet left a sizable circular fragment and a smaller irregular fragment on the outer table of the skull 1 cm from the entry point. The FPP majority couldn't cite such a case because no such case has ever happened.

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.

Pure hogwash. They are not "very similar." Folks, you can see the Edgewood test-skull x-rays here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (p. 10)

As anyone can readily see (well, except Mitch Todd), those x-rays show no cluster of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region. They do not show the high fragment trail seen on the JFK skull x-rays. They show no trail that even comes close to the alleged cowlick entry site.

What in the devil are you looking at, Mitch Todd, to make the bogus claim that those x-rays show a "very similar" fragmentation pattern?

And very different from the x-rays provided by DiMaio in his figures 11-4 and 11-5

Yeah, gee, could that be because Figure 11-4 shows an x-ray of a neck hit with hunting ammo, which is not fully jacketed, and because Figure 11-5 shows an x-ray of a skull hit by a .357 Magnum bullet, which is a high-velocity and only semi-jacketed missile?! It's curious that you omitted these crucial facts about those figures. One might get the impression that were purposely trying to mislead readers.

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.

You might want to read Lattimer's article on his head-shot test results. He shows the fragmentation pattern in the skull. It was the exact opposite of the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

Now, in conclusion, let's once again read what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets shattering into dozens of tiny fragments after hitting bone:

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)

[Michael T. Griffith]

Let us, at least temporarily, move beyond the dubious evasions and misrepresentations of those who can't admit that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull and who can't admit that the fragmentation in the WC's test-skull x-rays looks nothing like the fragmentation in the JFK skull x-rays. Let us get back to the core problems posed by the back-of-head fragments:

The McDonnell fragment is 1 cm below the cowlick entry site and is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment that is inside the image of the 6.5 mm object. The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment plowed through both the galea and the pericranium and embedded itself in the outer table, while the McDonnel fragment plowed through the galea but stopped in the pericranium. The pericranium is the area between the galea and the outer table. The galea and pericranium are both dense, tough fibrous membranes that cover the outer table. WC apologists have no rational, credible answers to the three obvious questions raised by these facts:

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 in the pericranium 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.

Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image was superimposed over the image of a somewhat smaller genuine fragment (the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment). But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited such a sizable a fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less two fragments, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.

[Tim Nickerson]

Let us, at least temporarily, move beyond the dubious evasions and misrepresentations of those who can't admit that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull and who can't admit that the fragmentation in the WC's test-skull x-rays looks nothing like the fragmentation in the JFK skull x-rays. Let us get back to the core problems posed by the back-of-head fragments:

The tests done at Edgewood Arsenal for the WC demonstrated that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull. That is not something that reasonable people would deny. You are not reasonable.




There were no metal fragments in the back of the head. The 7 x 2mm fragment removed by Humes was behind the right eye. It was not imbedded in the frontal skull bone. The "6.5mm" object seen in the anterior X-Ray view is that 7 x 2mm fragment.




 

[Michael T. Griffith]

The tests done at Edgewood Arsenal for the WC demonstrated that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull. That is not something that reasonable people would deny. You are not reasonable.

No, you are simply ignoring self-evident facts that refute your fiction. You keep repeating the same erroneous claims and ignoring facts that refute them. CE 859 does not show dozens of tiny fragments. It shows at least 10 sizable fragments and some smaller fragments. You know that CE 857 shows even fewer fragments, which I suspect is why you chose not to cite it or post it. You also know that Specter felt compelled to take Olivier "off the record" after Olivier implied that CEs 857 and 859 do not contain the same number of fragments although they were "supposed to"--anyone can see they do not.

And I notice you once again ducked the issue of the WC test-skull x-rays and the fact that their fragmentation pattern looks nothing like the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

There were no metal fragments in the back of the head. The 7 x 2mm fragment removed by Humes was behind the right eye. It was not imbedded in the frontal skull bone. The "6.5mm" object seen in the anterior X-Ray view is that 7 x 2mm fragment.

LOL! The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are both plainly visible on the AP x-ray. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and they have very different shapes, as anyone can readily see on your own graphic! So it is just weird that you keep claiming they are the same object.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you repeat such bizarre, demonstrably false claims? Honestly, part of me suspects that you are a closet conspiracy theorist who is here to make WC apologists look unserious and unbelievable.

I notice you once again ducked the issue of the McDonnel fragment, which is in the rear outer table of the skull and slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object in the skull x-rays. The fragment was identified by Dr. Gerald M. McDonnel, an expert diagnostic radiologist consulted by the HSCA, and was noted in the HSCA FPP's documents. Dr. David Mantik has confirmed the McDonnel fragment via optical-density (OD) measurements. FYI, as a radiation oncologist, he specializes in taking and using OD measurements.

And, as I've mentioned to you several times, two independent sets of OD measurements, one done by Dr. Mantik and the other done by neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, also confirm that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm genuine fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is a ghosted image. The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's density is vastly smaller than the 6.5 mm object's physically impossible density, which explains why the 6.5 mm object does not appear on the lateral x-ray but why the much-less-dense 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment does appear thereon.

Ignoring hard scientific evidence won't make it go away.

[Tim Nickerson]

No, you are simply ignoring self-evident facts that refute your fiction. You keep repeating the same erroneous claims and ignoring facts that refute them. CE 859 does not show dozens of tiny fragments. It shows at least 10 sizable fragments and some smaller fragments. You know that CE 857 shows even fewer fragments, which I suspect is why you chose not to cite it or post it. You also know that Specter felt compelled to take Olivier "off the record" after Olivier implied that CEs 857 and 859 do not contain the same number of fragments although they were "supposed to"--anyone can see they do not.

Most of the fragments in CE-859 have no real size to them. That is, they can't rightfully be described as sizable. I notice that you changed your original claim of "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls" to "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull". Why did you do that?

And I notice you once again ducked the issue of the WC test-skull x-rays and the fact that their fragmentation pattern looks nothing like the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

Why should we expect the fragmentation pattern in the WC test-skull x-rays to match the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays?

"The lead fragments in the test skull show a clearer path of the bullet, as they stayed in place after the shot. Many of the fragments deposited in the President’s brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the side of his head, in the car and in Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a “trail” of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This “trail” does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP’s reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."

Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 192). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472

LOL! The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are both plainly visible on the AP x-ray. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and they have very different shapes, as anyone can readily see on your own graphic! So it is just weird that you keep claiming they are the same object.

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.

Where is the fragment that is seen imbedded in the frontal skull bone in the lateral view visible in the anterior view? Point it out to me.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Most of the fragments in CE-859 have no real size to them. That is, they can't rightfully be described as sizable. I notice that you changed your original claim of "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls" to "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull". Why did you do that?

That's just different verbiage that's saying essentially the same thing. I usually say "penetrating" but sometimes say "hitting."

Why should we expect the fragmentation pattern in the WC test-skull x-rays to match the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays?

Is this a serious question? I hope not. 

"The lead fragments in the test skull show a clearer path of the bullet, as they stayed in place after the shot. Many of the fragments deposited in the President’s brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the side of his head, in the car and in Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a “trail” of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This “trail” does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP’s reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."
Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 192). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.

This is the kind of confusion and silliness you get from experts who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads. When Sturdivan was writing this stuff, he apparently forgot that in the WC's wound ballistics head-shot test, they simulated brain tissue by placing gelatin in the cadaver skulls, and that the autopsy doctors said that the skull x-rays that they took and examined showed a trail of fragments starting at the EOP site and coursing upward to the right orbit. He apparently also forgot that the extant autopsy brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum or to the right-rear parietal lobe, which means, if these photos are genuine, that there would have been brain tissue in which the EOP-to-right-orbit fragments could have lodged. He apparently also forgot that the autopsy doctors said that part of the exit wound extended into the occiput, yet no such wound is seen in the current autopsy photos. He apparently also forgot that dozens of witnesses, including medical personnel and federal agents, said the exit wound was in the right-rear part of the skull, not above the right ear. And he also seemed to forget that the exit wounds in the WC test skulls looked nothing like JFK's exit wound.

And on and on we could go.

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.

Where is the fragment that is seen imbedded in the frontal skull bone in the lateral view visible in the anterior view? Point it out to me.

Are you serious? As I've explained to you several times, and as Humes himself made clear, Humes was referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment. The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from behind the right orbital ridge. In the autopsy report, Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed “from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex” (p. 4). In his WC testimony, Humes said the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from “above and somewhat behind the President’s eye” (2 H 354). Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. He measured them after he removed them.

Why are we still even talking about this?

Dr. Mantik points out that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm back-of-head fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24).

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is the kind of confusion and silliness you get from experts who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads. When Sturdivan was writing this stuff, he apparently forgot that in the WC's wound ballistics head-shot test, they simulated brain tissue by placing gelatin in the cadaver skulls, and that the autopsy doctors said that the skull x-rays that they took and examined showed a trail of fragments starting at the EOP site and coursing upward to the right orbit. He apparently also forgot that the extant autopsy brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum or to the right-rear parietal lobe, which means, if these photos are genuine, that there would have been brain tissue in which the EOP-to-right-orbit fragments could have lodged. He apparently also forgot that the autopsy doctors said that part of the exit wound extended into the occiput, yet no such wound is seen in the current autopsy photos. He apparently also forgot that dozens of witnesses, including medical personnel and federal agents, said the exit wound was in the right-rear part of the skull, not above the right ear. And he also seemed to forget that the exit wounds in the WC test skulls looked nothing like JFK's exit wound.

And on and on we could go.

Are you serious? As I've explained to you several times, and as Humes himself made clear, Humes was referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment. The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from behind the right orbital ridge. In the autopsy report, Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed “from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex” (p. 4). In his WC testimony, Humes said the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from “above and somewhat behind the President’s eye” (2 H 354). Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. He measured them after he removed them.

Why are we still even talking about this?

Dr. Mantik points out that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm back-of-head fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24).

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery.

Just bumping this thread to remind readers that WC apologists have no credible explanation for the back-of-head bullet fragments, for the 6.5 mm object, for the autopsy doctors' failure to mention the high fragment trail, and for the fact that the extant autopsy x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report and reaffirmed by the autopsy doctors after viewing the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966.