MG: The level of ignorance and bias displayed in your comments is further proof that you have no business discussing the JFK assassination in a public forum.
JC: Oh, the irony.
No irony. Just a factual statement.
MG: You don't even have a minimal understanding of the forensic and wound ballistics evidence in the case, nor do you seem to know anything about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates.
JC: Neither of us is an expert in these areas and one of us actually realizes that.
How does this dodge address the point that you clearly know nothing about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates?
MG: If you did, you would know better than to cite the fraudulent trajectory analyses of Dale Myers.
JC: Tell us what is fraudulent about it. If you can't, we can just dismiss your declarations as so much bluster.
IOW, you still haven't read my article "The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory." Moreover, Myers' SBT trajectory analysis was debunked by Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers in their historic 2023 SBT trajectory analysis, an analysis that dwarfed all previous analyses in complexity and data.
To get some idea of the poor quality of Myers' writings on other issues, I suggest you read my reply to Myers' book on the Tippit shooting:
Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book
With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippithttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/viewMG: It is also clear that you've read very little if any of the research of responsible scholars who reject the lone-gunman scenario.
JC: Define "responsible scholar". Do you get a certificate of some kind when you become one?
Oh! Well, so do you think that no scholar who posits a conspiracy in the JFK case can be a "responsible scholar"?
I notice in another reply that you brushed aside Dr. David Mantik's historic research on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays with the flimsy argument that his research is invalid/unimportant because he's not a forensic pathologist. As a radiation oncologist who also has a doctorate in physics, Dr. Mantik knows more about the mechanics and qualities of x-ray film, the optical-density measuring of x-rays, and the physics of bullet behavior than any forensic pathologist.
MG: I already quoted what DiMaio said on FMJ ammo vs. frangible ammo in a post to which you replied just last week, in my "Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos" thread. I'm guessing you missed this because you only skimmed through my post. It says volumes about the shallow level of your knowledge that you don't already know what DiMaio said on this issue.
JC: I know Di Maio is an LN.
Oh, you "know" that, huh? Do you know that DiMaio later changed his mind about the SBT? Do you know that DiMaio said FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of fragments and specified that x-rays that show dozens of fragments, a "lead snowstorm," rule out FMJ ammo? 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. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 166, emphasis added)
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. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)Have you studied the x-rays of the skulls used in the WC's wound ballistics tests? Did you notice that the bullet fragmentation on those skull x-rays, both in its amount and pattern--looks nothing like the bullet fragmentation on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays?
Are you aware that 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?
Are you aware that Dr. Lattimer's wound ballistics test, for what it's worth given Lattimer's 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 admitted that the autopsy brain photos show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter. So, either the brain photos are right or the skull x-rays are right--one of them is wrong.
Lattimer was correct: The x-rays do in fact show most of the right hemisphere of the brain to be missing, which severely contradicts the alleged autopsy brain photos. The brain photos show a large cut in the brain along the length of the brain, but they show virtually no missing tissue, a fact that Dr. Baden himself admitted to Bugliosi.
Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the most qualified radiologists to ever study the autopsy skull x-rays, said the x-rays shows a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing. Humes told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away. Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has examined the skull x-rays at the National Archives, has likewise said they show a large portion of the right brain to be missing. And, Dr. Mantik has confirmed via multiple optical-density measurements that the x-rays show a large portion of the right side of the brain to be missing. Obviously, the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.
MG: You contend it's "very plausible" that Humes mismeasured the entry wound by 0.5 mm, assuming the wound was 6.5 mm instead of 6.0 mm. This is hardly "very plausible" when we're talking about a wound measured with a ruler or a caliper. A 0.5 mm measuring error of a wound less than 7 mm wide would be a rather pronounced error even for a first-year pathology student.
JC: So after decades of telling us how incompetent the autopsy team was, you now cite one of its conclusions to bolster your argument.
Another one of your misleading dodges. I've never, ever, ever argued that the autopsy doctors were so unbelievably incompetent that they could have made the kinds of staggering errors that most of your side claims they made.
MG: But you guys, since most of you go with the cowlick entry site, must not only assume that Humes mismeasured the entry wound but that he, Boswell, and Finck made the mind-boggling blunder of mislocating the wound by a staggering 10 cm, that they somehow, someway mistook a wound above the lambdoid suture for a wound 10 cm lower, 1 cm above the EOP, when they had the EOP and the lambda as fixed reference points, not to mention the hairline.
JC: As I explained to you already, once Oswald's bullet went through JFK's head, it became a jumbled mass of bone fragments held loosely together by a lacerated scalp. One of Wecht's criticisms of the autopsy was that they failed to take measurements from standard points of reference for a medico-legal autopsy which this team was performing for the first time.
And as I've explained to you already, that is total nonsense. Not even the HSCA FPP majority used that bogus argument to try to explain the autopsy doctors' alleged "misplacement" of the rear head entry wound by an unbelievable 10 cm (3.93 inches). As I've also pointed out to you already, even the autopsy photos show the skull was not nearly as damaged as you are claiming--indeed, those photos show the back of the head intact, so there was no reason the autopsy doctors should have had any trouble distinguishing between a wound 1 cm above the EOP and a wound 10 cm higher, 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. A half-blind first-year medical student would not make such an error.
It is no wonder the autopsy doctors were flabbergasted when the FPP majority accused them of making such an unbelievable, unfathomable error.
MG: You guys must also assume that Humes, Boswell, and Finck somehow "missed" the glaringly obvious high fragment trail on the skull x-rays, or, equally mind boggling, that they mistook it for a fragment trail that was 2 inches lower, that started near different fixed reference points, and that had the opposite trajectory (low-to-high vs. high-to-low). Why must you assume this? Because the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and because they said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report.
JC: Thank you for your assessment Dr. Griffith. Now can you cite any competent forensic medical examiners to support your position.
LOL! How can you not know this stuff? Umm, the fact that the extant autopsy skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report was acknowledged by the FPP and by the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel (which included Spitz and Hodges). It is astounding that you are unaware of such basic information.
In contrast, the Clark Panel floated the hilarious argument that the high fragment trail lines up with the EOP entry site and that the high fragment trail is the same fragment trail described in the autopsy report!
MG: The woeful level of your knowledge shines through in your silly comment that the CBS rifle test was "a completely pointless exercise because Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots." As many, many scholars have pointed out, even if one assumes that the alleged lone gunman started firing before the limo passed under the oak tree, he still would have to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo cleared the oak tree--unless, of course, one wants to argue that the first hit on JFK happened before Z166, which no WC apologist claims. This is basic JFK Case 101 stuff, but you don't even have a handle on this foundational material. (BTW, in the WC's rifle test, which involved three Master-rated riflemen using the alleged murder weapon itself, their second and third shots missed nearly every time.)
JC: A relevant test would have attempted to see if Oswald could score hits on consecutive shots 5 seconds apart. It would also have been redundant since Oswald already proved that it was possible to do so and that it didn't require an expert marksman to do it.
Huh?! You don't even seem to understand the basic requirements of the lone-gunman shooting scenario. Do you understand that the sixth-floor window's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210? Do you understand that if the sixth-floor gunman missed with a pre-Z166 shot, he would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds when he resumed firing at Z210, but that the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots and scored hits on the majority of their first shots?
If the alleged shooting feat did not require an expert marksman, why did the WC's three Master-rated riflemen markedly fail to duplicate it? Why did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test fail to duplicate it, even though the test counted as "hits" any shot that landed far from the area that Oswald allegedly hit with two of his shots? Why did the Marine Corps' greatest and most legendary sniper, Carlos Hathcock, conclude there was no way Oswald could have done the shooting attributed to him by the WC?
MG: It is comical that you would cite the limo bullet fragments as evidence that FMJ bullets shatter into dozens of fragments when they strike skulls. This is a hilarious gaffe. I notice you didn't explain how a bullet fragment that supposedly transited a human skull could end up with a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. Not a single bullet fragment in any of the JFK wound ballistics tests emerged with such deformation--not one.
JC: I don't have to prove that. You are the one claiming that is impossible so the burden of proof is on you.
Another flimsy dodge. I notice you snipped my point that none of the fragments in the WC's wound ballistics tests looked anything like this.
Anyway, I am citing the documented fact that one of the limo fragments had a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. I am simply asking you to explain how a bullet that transited a human skull could produce such a fragment, given the fact that not one of the fragments in the WC's wound ballistics test ended up in this condition. In fact, not one of the fragments in any other JFK wound ballistics tests has ended up in this condition either.
Here's the simple, logical answer: The limo fragment in question did not go through JFK's head. That's why it looks nothing like any fragments from any known JFK wound ballistics test.
