Readers who have seen our previous exchanges on this issue will see that you are now just lying through your teeth and are continuing to simply make up nonsense, not to mention that you are acting like a rude teenager who knows he's losing the argument--and losing it badly.
This from the guy who claimed I had cited Guinn's findings when I hadn't even mentioned him in this thread. Clean up your own act before you start accusing others of lying.
They'll see that you are still ducking the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test, which show minimal bullet fragmentation. They'll see that I've quoted a number of forensic and ballistics experts on the behavior of FMJ bullets, and that you obviously have no answer for the cold, hard facts about FMJ bullet behavior.
Refuting your FUBAR conclusions is not ducking. I applied critical thinking to your claims and pointed out the flaws in your logic. That is not ducking/.
They will find it odd that you comically accuse me of not providing sources when I have provided numerous sources (including page numbers therein) for my statements, and when you almost never provide any sources to back up your bogus claims.
I provided a link to the ENTIRE Science Direct article instead of following you standard practice of clipping a few short sentences out of context and then putting your own spin on what it mean.
They will notice that you still haven't explained the fact that every expert who has examined the medical evidence and commented on it has said the skull damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity.
I did address this and I pointed out that without a standard definition of what constitutes "high velocity", the observation is meaningless. It tells us nothing about the round in question. Do you know of such a definition? I didn't think so, but that doesn't stop you from using the term to lamely try to make a point.
If they read the 2022 Science Direct summary article that you linked (I just have to chuckle about this), they will see that the article says the JFK skull damage was done by the "high-speed impact" of a bullet--but, again, the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. They will notice that the study was purely computational and virtual and was not based on any actual JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests. They will notice that the study does not even address the known behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike skull bone. And, they will notice that not one of the four authors of that study had ever written a single article on a forensic/ballistics issue before they wrote their 2022 "ballistic analysis" of JFK's head damage.
Now tell us what Science Direct considered "high velocity". Oh wait, You can't. Never mind.
(The four authors' previous articles deal with such subjects as the viscoelasticity of human gluteal tissue, metabolic consequences of persistence of visceral obesity and diabetes, radiation dose-dependent skin toxicity, the adhesion and invasion of renal cell carcinoma cells, strategy of robotic surgeons to exert public influence through Twitter, laser-induced thermotherapy using MR thermometry, vitamin D deficiency in orthopedic patients, cartilage chip transplantation for cartilage defects, and periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels. What happened to your phony position that only the opinions of forensic experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives count?)
When you aren't lying, you are telling half-truths which is just as bad. I have cited the forensic experts who have examined the medical evidence. I have never said that they are the only ones that count. I have cited the work of the Haags on ballistics. I have rejected your practice of citing "experts" who are commenting on fields outside of their area of expertise.
They will find it especially odd that you are still claiming that "every forensic expert" who has examined and commented on the JFK medical evidence has "concluded JFK was shot from above and behind," when I've proved to you that this is not true,
My aching Bahookie. Name one FORENSIC MEDICAL EXPERT who has seen the medical evidence who has disagreed with the original autopsy conclusion that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from behind him. That doesn't include radiation oncologists. That doesn't include ophthalmologists. It doesn't include gynecologists. These are the kinds of doctors you typically cite to try and make your FUBAR points.
and when this does not even address the issue of the ammo's behavior. They will also find it quite revealing that you once again allude to Guinn's debunked NAA findings. And on and on I could go.
Another of your half-truths. I have never cited Guinn to support any argument I have made. In response to another poster who suggested that the lead fragments from the JBC's wrist and JFK's head be compared to the recovered bullets, I pointed out that this had already been done. This is what I actually wrote on the matter"
"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"
I neither endorsed nor refuted Guinn's findings and as I said, left it up to the reader to make their own judgement. You resort to your practice of telling half truths have suggested that I endorsed Guinn's findings, which I most certainly did not do. But that didn't stop you from making your knee-jerk reaction to what I wrote.
You see, I know that you're never going to deal with this issue in an honest, credible manner. I realize that. You've proved in spades. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and grasp and blunder in trying to explain the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.
You are the last person on this forum who should be pontificating about honesty.
Let me refresh your memory with quotes from Dr. DiMaio's internationally acclaimed forensic book Gunshot Wounds that I've presented to you several times now and that you just keep dodging:
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. . . .[./u](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, emphasis added)
Again, did you catch that? Did you see where DiMaio said (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo?
But, of course, I'm fairly certain you'll just continue to lie, duck, dodge, grasp, and blunder about this fact.
BTW, if rifles are almost never used in gunshot cases involving headshots except in wartime, why do forensic and ballistics sources state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone? What is their basis for saying this? Huh?
I bet I know: I bet they base that statement of fact on known forensic cases. If the present is any indication of the past, then this should not be surprising. Why? Well, in 2020 and 2021 rifles were used in murders over 900 times; rifles were used 570 times in 2022 murders; rifles were used 533 times in 2023 murders, and rifles were used 401 times in 2024 murders (https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/FBI_UCR_Expanded_Homicide_Data_Table_8_Murder_Victims_by_Weapon_2020-2024-1.pdf).
If only 10% of those cases involved headshots with FMJ ammo, that would make over 230 cases involving headshots with FMJ ammo, and, again, FMJ ammo is one of the three most common types of ammo.
So you can drop your bogus claim that we have very little information on the behavior of FMJ bullets when they hit skulls. We also have the WC's, Lattimer's, and Fackler's headshot wound ballistics tests, none of which produced FMJ bullets that shattered into dozens of fragments, not to mention FMJ bullets that also deposited several small fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact, created a fragment trail disconnected from any entry wound, and magically deposited two fragments at the opposite and of the skull at least 1 inch from any fragment trail.
I have pointed out to you how infrequently any type of rifle is used in homicides in the US and those involving rifle fired FMJ bullets to the skull would be a tiny fraction of rifle homicides. Even smaller would be those involving 6.5mm Carcano bullets would be the only meaningful comparison to the JFK assassination. Everything else is apples to oranges. It would not surprise me at all if JFK was the only person murder in the USA by such a bullet fired into the skull, given how unusual that particular rifle and round are. Even though the Carcano has become a collector's item, finding the same type of ammo Oswald fired is difficult. There are a number of dealers selling 6.5X52mm Carcano compatible rounds, but the FMJ round nosed bullet is quite rare. There are pointy tipped FMJ rounds available and also rounded lead bullets, but that is not what Oswald fired.
