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

[Tom Graves]

Is it really sufficient to argue that CE399 could possibly have gone through both men and caused all those wounds if there is no evidence that it did?

Iacoletti,

By "no evidence" do you mean there's no high-speed film showing its penetrating JBC's wrist backwards, . . . that sort of thing?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Mike, Why are you afraid to answer the question? It was a conspiracy, right? Well, how many people, plus-or-minus 10 or so, do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up? -- Tom. PS. Okay, plus-or-minus 100.

Oh, I'm not at all afraid to answer your diversionary question, but your question is just that: diversionary. You seem unwilling to deal with the hard scientific evidence that the back-of-head bullet fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

That being said, I'll answer your diversionary question: My personal belief is that approximately 30 people were involved in the planning and execution of the assassination. As for the number of people who were involved in the cover-up, that is a much more complex issue (1) because some of those people were led to believe it was vital for national security to blame the shooting on a lone gunman who acted solely on his own, and (2) because some of them were military personnel or federal agents who were ordered to do what they did (and some of them were forced to sign a gag order). As just one example of the latter, Dr. Finck failed to examine JFK's clothing, a standard and crucial autopsy procedure in this kind of gunshot case, because a senior military officer prohibited him from doing so, and that same senior officer then refused Dr. Finck's request to mark the autopsy protocol as incomplete. If I had to guess the number of people who knowingly, willingly, and maliciously took part in the cover-up and knew they were helping to conceal an assassination conspiracy, I would estimate that about 15 or 20 people did so.

Now, to return to the subject of the thread, it is worth noting that in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, not one of the FMJ bullets deposited a single fragment at or near the entry wound on the skulls. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did this either. Dr. Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged that he has never seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner. As also mentioned, the HSCA FPP majority claimed it was "rare" for an FMJ bullet to do this--and, revealingly, they did not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done so.

 

[Tom Graves]

Oh, I'm not at all afraid to answer your diversionary question, but your question is just that: diversionary. You seem unwilling to deal with the hard scientific evidence that the back-of-head bullet fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

That being said, I'll answer your diversionary question: My personal belief is that approximately 30 people were involved in the planning and execution of the assassination. As for the number of people who were involved in the cover-up, that is a much more complex issue (1) because some of those people were led to believe it was vital for national security to blame the shooting on a lone gunman who acted solely on his own, and (2) because some of them were military personnel or federal agents who were ordered to do what they did (and some of them were forced to sign a gag order). As just one example of the latter, Dr. Finck failed to examine JFK's clothing, a standard and crucial autopsy procedure in this kind of gunshot case, because a senior military officer prohibited him from doing so, and that same senior officer then refused Dr. Finck's request to mark the autopsy protocol as incomplete. If I had to guess the number of people who knowingly, willingly, and maliciously took part in the cover-up and knew they were helping to conceal an assassination conspiracy, I would estimate that about 15 or 20 people did so.

Now, to return to the subject of the thread, it is worth noting that in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, not one of the FMJ bullets deposited a single fragment at or near the entry wound on the skulls. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did this either. Dr. Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged that he has never seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner. As also mentioned, the HSCA FPP majority claimed it was "rare" for an FMJ bullet to do this--and, revealingly, they did not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done so.

Just 15 or 20, huh? Have you thought this through?

Regardless, what makes you think that the "two fragments" you're concerned about were deposited by a bullet or bullets at the back of JFK's skull?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another point that needs to be repeated is that the autopsy report describes a fragment trail that runs from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and that this fragment trail is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The idea that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the fragment trail seen near the top of the head on the extant skull x-rays boggles the mind. A first-year medical student could not have committed such an astounding error. Radiologist Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA that the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the alleged cowlick entry site, which means it is 16 cm above the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report.

Yet, the autopsy doctors said that a fragment trail ran upward from the EOP entry site to a spot slightly above the right eye.

And, amazingly, the autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about a fragment trail near the top of the head. A first-year med student could not have confused one for the other.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another point that needs to be repeated is that the autopsy report describes a fragment trail that runs from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and that this fragment trail is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The idea that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the fragment trail seen near the top of the head on the extant skull x-rays boggles the mind. A first-year medical student could not have committed such an astounding error. Radiologist Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA that the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the alleged cowlick entry site, which means it is 16 cm above the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report.

Yet, the autopsy doctors said that a fragment trail ran upward from the EOP entry site to a spot slightly above the right eye.

And, amazingly, the autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about a fragment trail near the top of the head. A first-year med student could not have confused one for the other.

Another thing to keep in mind about these two revealing facts is that the high fragment trail and the fragment trail described in the autopsy report have different high and low points, i.e., different angles in relation to the skull. The high fragment trail's highest point is near the back of the skull and then goes downward, whereas the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report had its lowest point near the EOP and then went upward toward the right eye. This makes it all the more impossible to believe that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the high fragment trail. They would have had to be blind to perceive the high fragment trail as starting near the EOP and going upward to the right eye. Again, a first-year medical student would not make such an astounding error.

To recap the two key points here:

-- The EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays.

-- The high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays is over 4 inches above the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail, and the two trails have different angles in relation to the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and no one can seriously believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook the high fragment trail for an EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail. 

[Tom Graves]

Another thing to keep in mind about these two revealing facts is that the high fragment trail and the fragment trail described in the autopsy report have different high and low points, i.e., different angles in relation to the skull. The high fragment trail's highest point is near the back of the skull and then goes downward, whereas the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report had its lowest point near the EOP and then went upward toward the right eye. This makes it all the more impossible to believe that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the high fragment trail. They would have had to be blind to perceive the high fragment trail as starting near the EOP and going upward to the right eye. Again, a first-year medical student would not make such an astounding error.

To recap the two key points here:

-- The EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays.

-- The high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays is over 4 inches above the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail, and the two trails have different angles in relation to the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and no one can seriously believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook the high fragment trail for an EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail.

When you say "the extant skull x-rays," do you mean the ones that the evil, evil bad guys didn't destroy or something?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Just 15 or 20, huh? Have you thought this through?

Yes. Look at the Iran-Contra conspiracy. Hundreds of personnel took part in it, and dozens were involved in the attempted cover-up, but only a relative of top officials were driving the operation and then the cover-up. Most of the personnel were just following orders, had no idea where the funding was coming from, and were unaware of other aspects of the operation outside of their own.

Regardless, what makes you think that the "two fragments" you're concerned about were deposited by a bullet or bullets at the back of JFK's skull?

Umm, my point is that an FMJ bullet could not have deposited those fragments. A frangible bullet can deposit fragments at/near the entry site on a skull, but an FMJ bullet will never do this. In every wound ballistics test so far, no FMJ bullet deposited a single fragment, much less several, on the outer part of the skull at/near the entry wound. Not one. Never. Never ever.

When you say "the extant skull x-rays," do you mean the ones that the evil, evil bad guys didn't destroy or something?

Why do you always resort to theory and assumption when faced with hard evidence? Rather than explain why the skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, you resort to theoretical objections. Similarly, rather than explain the astounding fact that the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays, you argue that, gee, wouldn't the bad guys have destroyed such damning evidence of cover-up?

You forget that the autopsy x-rays were suppressed for years, for over two decades. Only a handful of experts were allowed to view them during the two decades following the assassination. Heck, even the autopsy doctors were not allowed to review them before testifying to the WC, a fact that they found troubling. But, when independent experts were finally allowed to examine the skull x-rays, they found numerous clear indications of alteration and confirmed this via independent optical-density measurements.

So, are you going to try to explain why the skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? There are really only three possibilities:

1. The autopsy doctors committed the unfathomable, astounding blunder of confusing the high fragment trail for a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ranged upward to just above the right eye.

2. The autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail. IOW, the low fragment trail never existed. The autopsy doctors fabricated it in order to explain the EOP entry wound.

3. The low fragment trail did exist but was made to disappear because it was a clearly separate trail from the high fragment trail, thus proving that two bullets hit JFK's head.