10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent

[Michael T. Griffith]

I find it comical that you would think two bullets that struck different body parts in different ways should end up sustaining similar damage. A car that slides sideways into a guard rail is going to look quite a bit different than one the smashes head on into a tree.

This is monkey-brain illogic and silliness. Good grief. CE 399 supposedly shattered the right distal radius bone, one of the strongest bones in the body, after supposedly smashing at least 4 inches of rib bone while traveling faster than the speed of sound in both cases. And you comically, childishly compare this to a car sliding sideways into a single obstacle, a guard rail no less. A retarded teenager wouldn't float such an absurd, bogus analogy.

The other half of your analogy is just as bad and silly. A tree is many, many times stronger than skull bone, and no car is constructed even remotely similarly to an FMJ bullet, nor is any car going to hit a tree while traveling faster than the speed of sound.

You simply refuse to face the fact that in every single SBT wound ballistics test ever done, even tests that were rigged as much as possible in the SBT's favor, the test bullets either were unable to do the required damage or emerged with much more deformity than CE 399.

You also simply refuse to face the fact that bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same damage as CE 399 or with more damage than CE 399, and that even bullets that merely transited 12 inches of ballistics gelatin, without hitting rib bone in the process, either failed to leave the wrist bone with enough energy to penetrate the simulated thigh or failed to leave the wrist bone at all.

You keep falsely assuming that the bullet that hit Connally's back was tumbling when it struck, even though you know this is false from the modest width of the back wound and from the narrow wound path through Connally's chest. You won't admit any fact that refutes you theory.

The fact that Connally's entry wound was only 1.5 cm wide indicates the bullet hit at a slightly horizontal angle. If the bullet had been markedly yawing, the entry wound would have been much larger, which is why all of your fellow SBT believers who claim the bullet hit while markedly yawing misleadingly cite the post-surgery size of 3.0 cm for the wound. And if the bullet had been tumbling through Connally's chest, it most certainly would have created a much wider wound path than the narrow path that Dr. Shaw described.

In another reply you said, "The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways." Really? Well, if CE 399 supposedly hit the wrist bone while traveling sideways, how is it that the entry wound on the wrist was only 2 cm long? CE 399 is 3.04 cm long? Huh? 

MTG finds it incredulous that one bullet was shattered while one remained intact yet we have evidence that is exactly what happened. I wonder how he explains that.

You have zero evidence that "this is exactly what happened." You have no test evidence. You have no forensic evidence. You have no eyewitness evidence -- indeed, Connally himself adamantly insisted that he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets and that he was not hit before Z229. You have no photographic evidence -- indeed, the Zapruder film proves to anyone not legally blind or brainwashed that JFK was hit long before Connally was hit, and that Connally was not hit until Z234. You have nothing but ridiculous speculation that was cooked up by a WC lawyer in order to avoid having to admit there was more than one gunman, and that speculation was so specious that even three of the seven members of the WC rejected it.

You have spent several days now doing nothing but waffling, ducking, dodging, and lying around the fact that we know from long-established forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone, much less "shear off" small fragments into the outer table of the skull upon penetration. The WC's own head-shot wound ballistics test confirmed these facts, as we see from the released x-rays of the skulls from the test. The Failure Analysis head-shot wound ballistics test also confirmed this fact -- indeed, in the Failure Analysis test, not a single one of the FMJ bullets even fragmented after striking skull bone. 

You've also danced and ducked around the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the bullet indicated by the skull damage has said the bullet was traveling at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said this. The Rockefeller Commission medical panel said this. The HSCA FPP's report assumed that the ammo fired at JFK was high-velocity ammo (e.g., 7 HSCA 175). Two of the HSCA FPP's radiology experts said high-velocity ammo was used. Dr. Fillinger, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Robertson, among other outside experts, have said this. You can't cite a single expert who has said the massive skull damage was not done by high-velocity ammo, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.

For any newcomers to this thread, the core problem here is that the ammo that hit JFK's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments while also depositing small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, depositing two fragments just behind and above the right orbit at the other end of the skull, and depositing one lone fragment on the left side of the skull, as seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The skull x-rays show a large cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments, often described as a "lead snowstorm," in the right-frontal region.

However, we know from forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever behave like this, that they will never fragment like this. I will once again quote world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, who pointed out that if an x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment when striking skull bone, they will only leave a "few" 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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, 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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)

[John Corbett]

This is monkey-brain illogic and silliness. Good grief. CE 399 supposedly shattered the right distal radius bone, one of the strongest bones in the body, after supposedly smashing at least 4 inches of rib bone while traveling faster than the speed of sound in both cases. And you comically, childishly compare this to a car sliding sideways into a single obstacle, a guard rail no less. A retarded teenager wouldn't float such an absurd, bogus analogy.

I'll try to dumb this down for you as best I can. Two similar objects striking different objects in different ways at different velocities are going to sustain dissimilar damage. 

The other half of your analogy is just as bad and silly. A tree is many, many times stronger than skull bone, and no car is constructed even remotely similarly to an FMJ bullet, nor is any car going to hit a tree while traveling faster than the speed of sound.

I dumbed it down as best I could for you. If you still don't understand, find a 5th grader to explain it to you.

You simply refuse to face the fact that in every single SBT wound ballistics test ever done, even tests that were rigged as much as possible in the SBT's favor, the test bullets either were unable to do the required damage or emerged with much more deformity than CE 399.

You also simply refuse to face the fact that bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same damage as CE 399 or with more damage than CE 399, and that even bullets that merely transited 12 inches of ballistics gelatin, without hitting rib bone in the process, either failed to leave the wrist bone with enough energy to penetrate the simulated thigh or failed to leave the wrist bone at all.

You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that a shooting can be perfectly replicated.

You keep falsely assuming that the bullet that hit Connally's back was tumbling when it struck, even though you know this is false from the modest width of the back wound and from the narrow wound path through Connally's chest. You won't admit any fact that refutes you theory.

If the bullet that hit JBC's back was not yawing, it would not have produced the elongated wound that it did. If it had not struck JFK first, it would have produced an entry wound similar to JFK's back wound.

The fact that Connally's entry wound was only 1.5 cm wide indicates the bullet hit at a slightly horizontal angle. If the bullet had been markedly yawing, the entry wound would have been much larger, which is why all of your fellow SBT believers who claim the bullet hit while markedly yawing misleadingly cite the post-surgery size of 3.0 cm for the wound. And if the bullet had been tumbling through Connally's chest, it most certainly would have created a much wider wound path than the narrow path that Dr. Shaw described.

Slightly horizontal? Is that like being slightly pregnant?

In another reply you said, "The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways." Really? Well, if CE 399 supposedly hit the wrist bone while traveling sideways, how is it that the entry wound on the wrist was only 2 cm long? CE 399 is 3.04 cm long? Huh? 

Because it was not perfectly perpendicular to the flight of the bullet. Not a hard concept to grasp for most people.

You have zero evidence that "this is exactly what happened." You have no test evidence. You have no forensic evidence. You have no eyewitness evidence -- indeed, Connally himself adamantly insisted that he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets and that he was not hit before Z229. You have no photographic evidence -- indeed, the Zapruder film proves to anyone not legally blind or brainwashed that JFK was hit long before Connally was hit, and that Connally was not hit until Z234. You have nothing but ridiculous speculation that was cooked up by a WC lawyer in order to avoid having to admit there was more than one gunman, and that speculation was so specious that even three of the seven members of the WC rejected it.

There is ample forensic evidence and test evidence to support the SBT.  As for an eyewitness, would you expect there to be a witness who said "I saw the bullet that left JFK's throat and it went right into Connally's back."?

JBC rejected the SBT because he knew he had been hit by the second shot and he had been led to believe JFK had been hit by the first shot. He had no direct knowledge whether JFK had been hit by the first or second shot.

You have spent several days now doing nothing but waffling, ducking, dodging, and lying around the fact that we know from long-established forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone, much less "shear off" small fragments into the outer table of the skull upon penetration. The WC's own head-shot wound ballistics test confirmed these facts, as we see from the released x-rays of the skulls from the test. The Failure Analysis head-shot wound ballistics test also confirmed this fact -- indeed, in the Failure Analysis test, not a single one of the FMJ bullets even fragmented after striking skull bone.

A true scientist would never say never, especially given the small sample size available. To the best of my knowledge, the JFKA is the only case study available as to what a 6.5 x 52mm Carcano bullet do upon hitting a human skull.

 

You've also danced and ducked around the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the bullet indicated by the skull damage has said the bullet was traveling at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said this. The Rockefeller Commission medical panel said this. The HSCA FPP's report assumed that the ammo fired at JFK was high-velocity ammo (e.g., 7 HSCA 175). Two of the HSCA FPP's radiology experts said high-velocity ammo was sued. Dr. Fillinger, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Robertson, among other outside experts, have said this. You can't cite a single expert who has said the massive skull damage was not done by high-velocity ammo, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.

For that to matter, there would have to be an accepted definition of what constitutes a "high velocity" round. Do you know of such a definition? The average muzzle velocity of a 6.5 x 52 mm round fired ffrom a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle is 2265 fps. That is at the low end of the range of a 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser round and lower than a .30-06 fired from a Springfield rifle or M-1 Garand. The latter two typically have muzzle velocities of around 2800 fps. The muzzle velocity of the Carcano is almost double that of most handgun ammo. Whether the Carcano rifle is a high velocity weapon or not depends on what one considers to be high velocity. 

For any newcomers to this thread, the core problem here is that the ammo that hit JFK's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments while also depositing small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, depositing two fragments just behind and above the right orbit at the other end of the skull, and depositing one lone fragment on the left side of the skull, as seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The skull x-rays show a large cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments, often described as a "lead snowstorm," in the right-frontal region.

However, we know from forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever behave like this, that they will never fragment like this. I will once again quote world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, who pointed out that if an x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment when striking skull bone, they will only leave a "few" 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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, 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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)

You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that all FMJ ammo behaves the same way. The only case studies that are relevant are ones involving a 6.5 x 52mm round fired into a human  skull. Do you know of any such case studies or is the JFKA the only one we have?

[Martin Weidmann]

In October of 1964, Frazier acknowledged that the rifle was in the bag when he signed a notarized affidavit stating that his car is the car which transported the weapon that morning.

Still using those fake "affidavits"?

You must really be desperate. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Actually, fragments from the brain were compared to the fragments found inside the limo and fragments from JBC's wrist were compared to CE399, both by the FBI in 1964 and by Dr. Vincent Guinn for the HSCA in 1977. Ken Rahn wrote an excellent article about it. Rather than put my own spin on what those tests did or didn't prove, I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.

https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_JFK_assassination.html

Oh my goodness. Once again you are decades behind the information curve. How, just how, can you not know that Guinn's 1977 NAA claims were refuted 20 years ago? How did you miss this news?

Guinn's NAA claims were first refuted in 2006 by two scientists, Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Several more scientists refuted Guinn's NAA claims the following year in an article published in The Annals of Applied Statistics.

Here are links to their articles:

"Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?" (Spiegelman, Tobin,  James, Sheather, Wexler, and Roundhill) (2007)
https://share.google/dfrci1tNxtQrbGHTz

"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives" (Randich and Grant) (2006)
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc890664/m2/1/high_res_d/900118.pdf

Summary of Randich and Grant's article in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (2006)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

I quote from the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Sheather-Wexler-Roundhill 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."

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.

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.

FYI, a little bit about the scientists who debunked Guinn's NAA claims:

-- W. M. Tobin was a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International.

-- Clifford Spiegelman was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics.

-- Simon Sheather headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M and won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and is now a visiting professor of statistics at the University of Kentucky.

-- William D. James was a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University and published several studies on NAA testing in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

-- D. M. Roundhill was a chemist with Chemical Consulting and published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

-- Erik Randich at the time was a forensics consultant and metallurgist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

-- Patrick Grant is an analytical chemist who has been a staff member at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 1983, has authored or coauthored more than 120 peer-reviewed scientific publications, and has been a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences since 1999 and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences since 2003.