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

[Michael T. Griffith]

What are you laughing about? One picture is worth a thousand words. In your case it is two autopsy pictures must be worth two thousand words. Why continue to deny what can be visually verified? First, there is not a wound in the back of the head. That removes most of your experts from the discussion. That pretty much leaves just the individual who said it was 1 to 2 ounces.

More LOL! IOW, all the evidence that the autopsy photos are inaccurate is wrong because the autopsy photos must be accurate! This is another version of your circular, evasive argument. You wave aside all the evidence that contradicts the autopsy photos--the OD measurements, the conflicting skull x-rays, the massive and mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts of a large back-of-head wound, the 16 surfaces onto which brain matter were blown--because you assume the autopsy photos are accurate.

OD measurements? Really. These experts, were they not aware of the photos? Is it too late to send them to these experts?

IOW, the known and established science of optical density (OD) measurement of x-rays must be discarded in this case because multiple and independently done OD measurements of the JFK skull x-rays contradict the autopsy brain photos! Here, too, your argument boils down to the silly circular dodge that even hard scientific evidence against the autopsy brain photos cannot be valid because the autopsy brain photos are valid, even though the brain photos contradict the autopsy report, even though Dr. Humes himself admitted that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, even though Dr. Fred Hodges said the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" missing, even though numerous witnesses said a bare minimum of 1/4 of the brain was gone, and even though we know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

MG---"At some point, you have to face Occam's Razor and stop denying hard science and solid evidence just because they destroy your version of the shooting."

The only Occam's Razor in any of this exists in the number of shots. Occam's razor supports there were only two shots. As did the WC and HSCA conclusions. Why aren’t you proposing two shots in 5.6 seconds? That is what Josiah wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas. He has been right about that since 1966 but refuses to accept he was correct. If you can actually prove there was a third shot in the 5.6 seconds, you can prove there was a conspiracy. Is not that your goal here? Proving a conspiracy?

Huh??? The WC said there were three shots. The HSCA said there were four shots, and presented scientific acoustical evidence that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll.

If there had been a lone-gunman firing from the sixth-floor window, then, as I've said many times, he would have to go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots.

[Jack Nessan]

More LOL! IOW, all the evidence that the autopsy photos are inaccurate is wrong because the autopsy photos must be accurate! This is another version of your circular, evasive argument. You wave aside all the evidence that contradicts the autopsy photos--the OD measurements, the conflicting skull x-rays, the massive and mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts of a large back-of-head wound, the 16 surfaces onto which brain matter were blown--because you assume the autopsy photos are accurate.

IOW, the known and established science of optical density (OD) measurement of x-rays must be discarded in this case because multiple and independently done OD measurements of the JFK skull x-rays contradict the autopsy brain photos! Here, too, your argument boils down to the silly circular dodge that even hard scientific evidence against the autopsy brain photos cannot be valid because the autopsy brain photos are valid, even though the brain photos contradict the autopsy report, even though Dr. Humes himself admitted that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, even though Dr. Fred Hodges said the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" missing, even though numerous witnesses said a bare minimum of 1/4 of the brain was gone, and even though we know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

Huh??? The WC said there were three shots. The HSCA said there were four shots, and presented scientific acoustical evidence that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll.

If there had been a lone-gunman firing from the sixth-floor window, then, as I've said many times, he would have to go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots.

Unless the OD measurements are done correctly and the X Rays taken to facilitate it, appears to be junk science on its best day.

Looks like it is back to the autopsy photos. Apparently, the Autopsy X-rays were faked.

DR Mantik:  “I discovered... new evidence that the autopsy X-rays of President John F. Kennedy have been altered, that there were 2 shots which struck the head”

Where exactly does his credibility come from?

MG:  “as I've said many times, he would have to go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots.”

There was not an early missed shot according to the eyewitnesses. 55 and 88 yards in just two shots total. There was time to aim for both. Really. That is not doable? 

Instead, you are stating there were two assassins' both armed with 6,5 mm carcanos. All the bullets and fragments retrieved were matched to one rifle indicating the second assassin was a very poor shot. I wonder if they even paid him?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Unless the OD measurements are done correctly and the X Rays taken to facilitate it, appears to be junk science on its best day. Looks like it is back to the autopsy photos. Apparently, the Autopsy X-rays were faked. DR Mantik:  “I discovered... new evidence that the autopsy X-rays of President John F. Kennedy have been altered, that there were 2 shots which struck the head.” Where exactly does his credibility come from?

You don't know? So you haven't read any of Dr. David Mantik's research on the case?

FYI, Dr. Mantik is a board-certified radiation oncologist who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at the University of Michigan. He has also had several papers involving radiology published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. As a radiation oncologist, he routinely used OD measurements of x-rays to form his diagnoses (he retired a few years ago). 

The medical expert who did the other set of OD measurements is Dr. Michael Chesser, who is a practicing board-certified neurologist with over 40 years of experience in the field. He is one of the few medical experts who's been given permission to view JFK's pre-mortem x-rays in Boston and the JFK autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements.

All the bullets and fragments retrieved were matched to one rifle. . . .

No, they were not. This fraudulent evidence was debunked nearly 20 years ago.

[Jack Nessan]

You don't know? So you haven't read any of Dr. David Mantik's research on the case?

FYI, Dr. Mantik is a board-certified radiation oncologist who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at the University of Michigan. He has also had several papers involving radiology published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. As a radiation oncologist, he routinely used OD measurements of x-rays to form his diagnoses (he retired a few years ago). 

The medical expert who did the other set of OD measurements is Dr. Michael Chesser, who is a practicing board-certified neurologist with over 40 years of experience in the field. He is one of the few medical experts who's been given permission to view JFK's pre-mortem x-rays in Boston and the JFK autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements.

No, they were not. This fraudulent evidence was debunked nearly 20 years ago.

You don't know? So you haven't read any of Dr. David Mantik's research on the case?

Only that Dr Mantik stated the Autopsy X Rays were faked. What else should I read? Now you trot him out as an expert of how much of the brain is missing based on his measurements?
 
FYI, Dr. Mantik is a board-certified radiation oncologist who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at the University of Michigan. He has also had several papers involving radiology published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. As a radiation oncologist, he routinely used OD measurements of x-rays to form his diagnoses (he retired a few years ago). 

So, you believe in addition to being able to walk on water, he is an expert but just not when he claims the autopsy X Rays were faked. All the other times he even opens his mouth he is beyond reproach?

DR Mantik:  “I discovered... new evidence that the autopsy X-rays of President John F. Kennedy have been altered, that there were 2 shots which struck the head

Has Dr Mantik passed the expert OD Measurement torch to Dr Chesser now? But according to you the most knowledgeable man in the world, Dr Mantik, decides to keep the knowledge a secret that the X Rays are faked? .
 
The medical expert who did the other set of OD measurements is Dr. Michael Chesser, who is a practicing board-certified neurologist with over 40 years of experience in the field. He is one of the few medical experts who's been given permission to view JFK's pre-mortem x-rays in Boston and the JFK autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements.

You would think Dr Mantik would show a little professional courtesy to Dr Chesser and tell him about the autopsy X Rays and just not let him needlessly make a boob of himself.

No, they were not. This fraudulent evidence was debunked nearly 20 years ago.

By whom? Why did they decide to keep it a secret and not tell the FBI and for that matter the rest of world?

The question still stands:

Back to the basic thought, you are stating there were two assassins' both armed with 6,5 mm carcanos. All the bullets and fragments retrieved were matched to one rifle indicating the second assassin was a very poor shot. I wonder if they even paid him.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You don't know? So you haven't read any of Dr. David Mantik's research on the case?

Only that Dr Mantik stated the Autopsy X Rays were faked. What else should I read? Now you trot him out as an expert of how much of the brain is missing based on his measurements?
 
FYI, Dr. Mantik is a board-certified radiation oncologist who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at the University of Michigan. He has also had several papers involving radiology published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. As a radiation oncologist, he routinely used OD measurements of x-rays to form his diagnoses (he retired a few years ago). 

So, you believe in addition to being able to walk on water, he is an expert but just not when he claims the autopsy X Rays were faked. All the other times he even opens his mouth he is beyond reproach?

DR Mantik:  “I discovered... new evidence that the autopsy X-rays of President John F. Kennedy have been altered, that there were 2 shots which struck the head

Has Dr Mantik passed the expert OD Measurement torch to Dr Chesser now? But according to you the most knowledgeable man in the world, Dr Mantik, decides to keep the knowledge a secret that the X Rays are faked? .
 
The medical expert who did the other set of OD measurements is Dr. Michael Chesser, who is a practicing board-certified neurologist with over 40 years of experience in the field. He is one of the few medical experts who's been given permission to view JFK's pre-mortem x-rays in Boston and the JFK autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements.

You would think Dr Mantik would show a little professional courtesy to Dr Chesser and tell him about the autopsy X Rays and just not let him needlessly make a boob of himself.

No, they were not. This fraudulent evidence was debunked nearly 20 years ago.

By whom? Why did they decide to keep it a secret and not tell the FBI and for that matter the rest of world?

The question still stands:

Back to the basic thought, you are stating there were two assassins' both armed with 6,5 mm carcanos. All the bullets and fragments retrieved were matched to one rifle indicating the second assassin was a very poor shot. I wonder if they even paid him.

You don't know what in the world you're talking about. Why don't you dare yourself to read what Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have written before you post more inaccurate and speculative attacks on them and their research?

As for the debunking of the claim that NAA proved that "all the bullets and fragments were linked to one rifle," the refutations of this myth were published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals Journal of Forensic Science and Annals of Applied Statistics in 2006 and 2007, and were widely reported on in the news media. It is telling that you know nothing of this research. You can read a summary of the research here:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/scientists-cast-doubt-on-kennedy-bullet-analysis
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

[Jack Nessan]

You don't know what in the world you're talking about. Why don't you dare yourself to read what Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have written before you post more inaccurate and speculative attacks on them and their research?

As for the debunking of the claim that NAA proved that "all the bullets and fragments were linked to one rifle," the refutations of this myth were published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals Journal of Forensic Science and Annals of Applied Statistics in 2006 and 2007, and were widely reported on in the news media. It is telling that you know nothing of this research. You can read a summary of the research here:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/scientists-cast-doubt-on-kennedy-bullet-analysis
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

You don't know what in the world you're talking about. Why don't you dare yourself to read what Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have written before you post more inaccurate and speculative attacks on them and their research?

How much more is there to know. Fake Autopsy X Rays. Why would I read on? At least the Autopsy Photos weren't faked.  Is Dr. Chesser looking at different ones?

Dr Mantik stated the Autopsy X Rays were faked. How much more needs to be read?  You said he is an expert in your opinion on OD measuring or something like that but not now?

As for the debunking of the claim that NAA proved that "all the bullets and fragments were linked to one rifle," the refutations of this myth were published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals Journal of Forensic Science and Annals of Applied Statistics in 2006 and 2007, and were widely reported on in the news media. It is telling that you know nothing of this research. You can read a summary of the research here:
 
https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/scientists-cast-doubt-on-kennedy-bullet-analysis
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

In the end they could not tell us the difference between their backside and a hole in the ground.

This whole report and this was their conclusion.

CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JFK ASSASSINATION BULLET LOTS: IS A SECOND SHOOTER POSSIBLE? BY CLIFF SPIEGELMAN, WILLIAM A. TOBIN, WILLIAM D. JAMES, SIMON J. SHEATHER, STUART WEXLER AND D. MAX ROUNDHILL

“Dr. Guinn may have been correct or incorrect about the number of bullets originating from the JFK fragments; the state of knowledge even today, but definitely about 30 years ago, remains too uncertain.”

Do you quote anyone who is not a clown? First Knotts Lab and now the Forensic Wet Dream Team.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You don't know what in the world you're talking about. Why don't you dare yourself to read what Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have written before you post more inaccurate and speculative attacks on them and their research?

How much more is there to know. Fake Autopsy X Rays. Why would I read on? At least the Autopsy Photos weren't faked.  Is Dr. Chesser looking at different ones?

Dr Mantik stated the Autopsy X Rays were faked. How much more needs to be read?  You said he is an expert in your opinion on OD measuring or something like that but not now?

IOW, because you are determined to believe the autopsy x-rays are unaltered, you won't even bother to read research by two highly qualified experts in the fields of radiology, physics, and neuroscience that proves via OD measurements that the x-rays have been altered.

Just curious: Are you ever going to deal with the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos?

As for the debunking of the claim that NAA proved that "all the bullets and fragments were linked to one rifle," the refutations of this myth were published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals Journal of Forensic Science and Annals of Applied Statistics in 2006 and 2007, and were widely reported on in the news media. It is telling that you know nothing of this research. You can read a summary of the research here:
 
https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/scientists-cast-doubt-on-kennedy-bullet-analysis
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

In the end they could not tell us the difference between their backside and a hole in the ground.

This whole report and this was their conclusion.

CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JFK ASSASSINATION BULLET LOTS: IS A SECOND SHOOTER POSSIBLE? BY CLIFF SPIEGELMAN, WILLIAM A. TOBIN, WILLIAM D. JAMES, SIMON J. SHEATHER, STUART WEXLER AND D. MAX ROUNDHILL

“Dr. Guinn may have been correct or incorrect about the number of bullets originating from the JFK fragments; the state of knowledge even today, but definitely about 30 years ago, remains too uncertain.”

Wow, talk about misleading cherry-picking. I think this shows you are untrustworthy and misleading when it comes to dealing with evidence you don't like. Here are some of the statements you must have missed when you were hastily skimming through the Tobin-Spiegelman-Sheather-James-Roundhill-Wexler article:

"Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets." How did you miss that?

"In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported." How did you miss that?

"We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments." How did you miss that?

If one reads the statement that you dishonestly cherry-picked in its full context, one sees that the authors are saying that while Guinn "may" have been correct, he had no scientific basis for saying that all the fragments came from only two bullets. Their whole point is that NAA shows that the fragments could have come from three or more bullets. To put it another way, NAA does not prove that the fragments came only from the two bullets allegedly used by Oswald.

Do you quote anyone who is not a clown? First Knotts Lab and now the Forensic Wet Dream Team.

Umm, so you're applying the term "clown" to W. M. Tobin, a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International; Clifford Spiegelman, who was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics; Simon Sheather, who headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M, who has won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and who is now a visiting professor of statistic at the University of Kentucky; William D. James, a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University who's published several studies on NAA in peer-reviewed scientific journals; and D. M. Roundhill, a chemist with Chemical Consulting who's published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals?!

I think such absurd polemic makes you the only clown here. If you want to read more about these scholars' education and qualifications, here are some links for you:

https://www.feintl.com/william-tobin/
https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2020/05/18/texas-am-mourns-loss-of-distinguished-professor-of-statistics-cliff-spiegelman/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheather
https://share.google/61uTfqvSX3ZKH6hc6 (Dr. Sheather's CV)
https://scholargps.com/scholars/24166986206546/william-d-james
https://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?field1=Contrib&text1=D.%20M.%20Roundhill

IOW, you will summarily dismiss any scientist or any expert who reaches conclusions that you don't like, without even bothering to read their research or just skimming through their research looking for content to quote out of context, and regardless of their acknowledged expertise in their fields.

[Jack Nessan]

IOW, because you are determined to believe the autopsy x-rays are unaltered, you won't even bother to read research by two highly qualified experts in the fields of radiology, physics, and neuroscience that proves via OD measurements that the x-rays have been altered.

Just curious: Are you ever going to deal with the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos?

Wow, talk about misleading cherry-picking. I think this shows you are untrustworthy and misleading when it comes to dealing with evidence you don't like. Here are some of the statements you must have missed when you were hastily skimming through the Tobin-Spiegelman-Sheather-James-Roundhill-Wexler article:

"Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets." How did you miss that?

"In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported." How did you miss that?

"We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments." How did you miss that?

If one reads the statement that you dishonestly cherry-picked in its full context, one sees that the authors are saying that while Guinn "may" have been correct, he had no scientific basis for saying that all the fragments came from only two bullets. Their whole point is that NAA shows that the fragments could have come from three or more bullets. To put it another way, NAA does not prove that the fragments came only from the two bullets allegedly used by Oswald.

Umm, so you're applying the term "clown" to W. M. Tobin, a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International; Clifford Spiegelman, who was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics; Simon Sheather, who headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M, who has won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and who is now a visiting professor of statistic at the University of Kentucky; William D. James, a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University who's published several studies on NAA in peer-reviewed scientific journals; and D. M. Roundhill, a chemist with Chemical Consulting who's published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals?!

I think such absurd polemic makes you the only clown here. If you want to read more about these scholars' education and qualifications, here are some links for you:

https://www.feintl.com/william-tobin/
https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2020/05/18/texas-am-mourns-loss-of-distinguished-professor-of-statistics-cliff-spiegelman/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheather
https://share.google/61uTfqvSX3ZKH6hc6 (Dr. Sheather's CV)
https://scholargps.com/scholars/24166986206546/william-d-james
https://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?field1=Contrib&text1=D.%20M.%20Roundhill

IOW, you will summarily dismiss any scientist or any expert who reaches conclusions that you don't like, without even bothering to read their research or just skimming through their research looking for content to quote out of context, and regardless of their acknowledged expertise in their fields.

IOW, because you are determined to believe the autopsy x-rays are unaltered, you won't even bother to read research by two highly qualified experts in the fields of radiology, physics, and neuroscience that proves via OD measurements that the x-rays have been altered.

 
No DR Mantik stated the X Rays were altered, I have no idea what you are posting about.

Why is it when you see the education and qualifications of these various “experts” does it make you appear to want to have their baby?

 
Just curious: Are you ever going to deal with the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos?

I thought I did, the head autopsy photos tell the story, according to your expert Dr Mantik, X Rays not so much. Are you only quoting Dr Mantik when it is convenient? If Dr Mantik had known there was only two shots what would have been his conclusions?

Wow, talk about misleading cherry-picking. I think this shows you are untrustworthy and misleading when it comes to dealing with evidence you don't like. Here are some of the statements you must have missed when you were hastily skimming through the Tobin-Spiegelman-Sheather-James-Roundhill-Wexler article:
 
"Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets." How did you miss that?
 
"In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported." How did you miss that?
 
"We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments." How did you miss that?
 
If one reads the statement that you dishonestly cherry-picked in its full context, one sees that the authors are saying that while Guinn "may" have been correct, he had no scientific basis for saying that all the fragments came from only two bullets. Their whole point is that NAA shows that the fragments could have come from three or more bullets. To put it another way, NAA does not prove that the fragments came only from the two bullets allegedly used by Oswald.

Who is one? How about stop reading their nonsense word for word and do some thinking for yourself about what they are really proposing. I never missed anything. They stated Guinn may have been right. Guinn had no Allterior motive unlike your wet dream team and then proved nothing but their inability to think for themselves. What would have been their conclusions if they had known there was only two shots?
 
Umm, so you're applying the term "clown" to W. M. Tobin, a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International; Clifford Spiegelman, who was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics; Simon Sheather, who headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M, who has won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and who is now a visiting professor of statistic at the University of Kentucky; William D. James, a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University who's published several studies on NAA in peer-reviewed scientific journals; and D. M. Roundhill, a chemist with Chemical Consulting who's published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals?!

Sounds like them. Yes, you know the Forensic Wet Dream Team. Lots of education but absolutely no brains. Stupid conclusion. The fact you do not see how stupid it really is, explains a why you so deeply believe in this tripe.

I think such absurd polemic makes you the only clown here. If you want to read more about these scholars' education and qualifications, here are some links for you:
 
https://www.feintl.com/william-tobin/
https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2020/05/18/texas-am-mourns-loss-of-distinguished-professor-of-statistics-cliff-spiegelman/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheather
https://share.google/61uTfqvSX3ZKH6hc6 (Dr. Sheather's CV)
https://scholargps.com/scholars/24166986206546/william-d-james
https://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?field1=Contrib&text1=D.%20M.%20Roundhill

I do not need to read these links. Blah, blah, blah they are amazing people, right? What I read here in this post is there is one very delusional individual who realized the three-shot scenario and believing in it has turned out to be and always has been a complete waste of time and effort and is trying to salvage whatever he can and still portray the illusion of a conspiracy. The fact that you cannot even address the core issue which is there really was only two shots. Two shots make this whole issue of your papers and these pseudo experts and their papers an absolutely moot and meaningless mental exercise. You know, one of the many mental wedgies you are so fond of believing is true. 
 
IOW, you will summarily dismiss any scientist or any expert who reaches conclusions that you don't like, without even bothering to read their research or just skimming through their research looking for content to quote out of context, and regardless of their acknowledged expertise in their fields.

I did read them all a long time ago and was unimpressed then and still am today. Wished I had not wasted my time on them. The premise of the paper, the assumptions that were applied, the assertions advanced by them, and the conclusions presented by them are the single most stupid thing I have ever read to date on the JFK Assassination. First the fact that you are so transfixed by the credentials and educational monikers of these clowns and second cannot understand how idiotic of a report was presented is an indication of just how far off the rails your whole story line has gone.