10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent

[Michael T. Griffith]

We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.

[John Corbett]

We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.

Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.

WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.

Wow, that's an ugly, hateful comment, a comment that seems to voice a death wish. I'm a bit surprised the moderators didn't jump on this comment.

WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.

You keep repeating this silly, phony dodge. As I've noted before, this lame evasion denies the very reason for and value of the fields of forensic science and wound ballistics.

Are you ever going to explain the fact that the most frequently encountered bullet designs in clinical and forensic practice are FMJ bullets, lead bullets, and semi-jacketed bullets? It is hilarious that you keep pretending that most gunshot cases involving FMJ bullets happen during wartime. No, every year a sizable percentage of gunshot cases involve FMJ ammo. Gee, maybe that's why forensic sources have much to say about the behavior of FMJ bullets, just as they have much to say about the behavior of lead ammo and semi-jacketed bullets, hey? 

Speaking of which, are you ever going to explain why forensic sources, such as DiMaio's internationally recognized handbook Gunshot Wounds, state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of small fragments when striking bone and that if x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo?

Are you ever going to explain why the Failure Analysis headshot wound ballistics test failed to produce a single FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments, much less an FMJ bullet that deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon penetration?

Are you ever going to explain the fact that FMJ bullets are designed not to break apart into multiple fragments in order to increase the degree of penetration? If you read forensic sources you'll learn that only FMJ bullets that are traveling at a high velocity have any chance of breaking up into multiple fragments. Humm, could this be why the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test show minimal bullet fragmentation?

Apparently you are clueless about the fact that SBT defenders cite this very fact -- i.e., that FMJ bullets are designed not to shatter in order to increase their penetrating power -- as evidence that a single FMJ bullet could penetrate seven layers of human skin, smash 4 inches of rib bone, and shatter a radius bone without losing its structure, with its lands and grooves remaining intact, and while losing less than 4 grains of its substance. Of course, they're doing so to defend an impossible scenario that goes well beyond what an FMJ bullet can endure before incurring substantial damage, as every single SBT wound ballistics test has proven.

Furthermore, you still have not explained the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head as indicated by the damage to the skull has said that the damage shows the ammo was traveling at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.

This issue of the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head is a shining example of the refusal of WC apologists to face facts. WC critics began raising this issue in the 1970s, and Howard Donahue, a court-certified firearms and ballistics experts, brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Lattimer and then Fackler tried to explain the issue with their own headshot wound-ballistics tests, but both tests failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Indeed, in Fackler's Failure Analysis test, the FMJ bullets failed to fragment at all. They suffered visible deformation, but did not fragment.

The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.     

[John Corbett]

Wow, that's an ugly, hateful comment, a comment that seems to voice a death wish. I'm a bit surprised the moderators didn't jump on this comment.

You keep repeating this silly, phony dodge. As I've noted before, this lame evasion denies the very reason for and value of the fields of forensic science and wound ballistics.

i tried my best to explain the obvious to you but I just can't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

Are you ever going to explain the fact that the most frequently encountered bullet designs in clinical and forensic practice are FMJ bullets, lead bullets, and semi-jacketed bullets?

No shit.

It is hilarious that you keep pretending that most gunshot cases involving FMJ bullets happen during wartime. No, every year a sizable percentage of gunshot cases involve FMJ ammo. Gee, maybe that's why forensic sources have much to say about the behavior of FMJ bullets, just as they have much to say about the behavior of lead ammo and semi-jacketed bullets, hey? 

The only thing relevant to this discussion are FMJ bullets fired by rifles into skulls und yes, most of those occur during wartime. Homicides committed with rifles are   a small fraction of all homicides and of those, are committed with FMJ bullets, and a still smaller fraction involve gunshot wounds to the skull. I guess you aren't bright enough to know that FMJ, bullets fired from handguns aren't going to behave like those fired from rifles.

Speaking of which, are you ever going to explain why forensic sources, such as DiMaio's internationally recognized handbook Gunshot Wounds, state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of small fragments when striking bone and that if x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo?

Why is it you never quote these sources. Why do you always give us your spin on what they say?

Are you ever going to explain why the Failure Analysis headshot wound ballistics test failed to produce a single FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments, much less an FMJ bullet that deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon penetration?

Since you don't quote these studies, i see no point in responding to your version of what these studies have concluded, given the number of times you completely misrepresent these results.

I do find it ironic that you would cite Failure Analysis given that they conclude almost four decades ago that the shots that hit JFK were fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.

I was unable to find an online source for the Failure Analysis study, but in searching for it, I did come across this more recent study by Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822000949

Are you ever going to explain the fact that FMJ bullets are designed not to break apart into multiple fragments in order to increase the degree of penetration? If you read forensic sources you'll learn that only FMJ bullets that are traveling at a high velocity have any chance of breaking up into multiple fragments. Humm, could this be why the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test show minimal bullet fragmentation?

All you ever do is present your dumbass conclusions. Quote a competent source if you expect me to respond.

Apparently you are clueless about the fact that SBT defenders cite this very fact -- i.e., that FMJ bullets are designed not to shatter in order to increase their penetrating power -- as evidence that a single FMJ bullet could penetrate seven layers of human skin, smash 4 inches of rib bone, and shatter a radius bone without losing its structure, with its lands and grooves remaining intact, and while losing less than 4 grains of its substance. Of course, they're doing so to defend an impossible scenario that goes well beyond what an FMJ bullet can endure before incurring substantial damage, as every single SBT wound ballistics test has proven.

You seem to get dumber with each post. you are comparing an FMJ bullet that passed through soft tissue of two torsos und tumbled before striking bone to one that struck nose first into a skull without passing through another object first.

Furthermore, you still have not explained the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head as indicated by the damage to the skull has said that the damage shows the ammo was traveling at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.

Every forensic expert who has seen the medical evidence and commented on it has concluded that JFK was shot from above end behind in the head and upper back and the only recovered bullets had been fired by Oswald's Carcano rifle, but you don't care.

This issue of the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head is a shining example of the refusal of WC apologists to face facts. WC critics began raising this issue in the 1970s, and Howard Donahue, a court-certified firearms and ballistics experts, brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Lattimer and then Fackler tried to explain the issue with their own headshot wound-ballistics tests, but both tests failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Indeed, in Fackler's Failure Analysis test, the FMJ bullets failed to fragment at all. They suffered visible deformation, but did not fragment.

And still you refuse to quote your sources.

The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.     

We only have your dumbass opinion on that because you steadfastly refuse to ever quote your sources. The reason for that is obvious. If you actually quoted your sources, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent their findings.

[Michael T. Griffith]

i tried my best to explain the obvious to you but I just can't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

No &^%^$.
 
The only thing relevant to this discussion are FMJ bullets fired by rifles into skulls und yes, most of those occur during wartime. Homicides committed with rifles are   a small fraction of all homicides and of those, are committed with FMJ bullets, and a still smaller fraction involve gunshot wounds to the skull. I guess you aren't bright enough to know that FMJ, bullets fired from handguns aren't going to behave like those fired from rifles.

Why is it you never quote these sources. Why do you always give us your spin on what they say?
Since you don't quote these studies, i see no point in responding to your version of what these studies have concluded, given the number of times you completely misrepresent these results.

I do find it ironic that you would cite Failure Analysis given that they conclude almost four decades ago that the shots that hit JFK were fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.

I was unable to find an online source for the Failure Analysis study, but in searching for it, I did come across this more recent study by Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822000949

All you ever do is present your dumbass conclusions. Quote a competent source if you expect me to respond.

You seem to get dumber with each post. you are comparing an FMJ bullet that passed through soft tissue of two torsos und tumbled before striking bone to one that struck nose first into a skull without passing through another object first.

Every forensic expert who has seen the medical evidence and commented on it has concluded that JFK was shot from above end behind in the head and upper back and the only recovered bullets had been fired by Oswald's Carcano rifle, but you don't care.

And still you refuse to quote your sources.

We only have your dumbass opinion on that because you steadfastly refuse to ever quote your sources. The reason for that is obvious. If you actually quoted your sources, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent their findings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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?)

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, 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.

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.

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. . . .(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.

[John Corbett]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here we go again. I have to explain what should be obvious. There is no standard definition of what constitutes a high velocity round. Without such a definition, one person or group could consider the 6.5mm Carcano round high velocity and someone else might not. It's all relative.

(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?)

Just admit it. You're pissed because another scientific body shot down your silly arguments.

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, 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.

You could go on and on lying because that is the only thing you're good for. I didn't even mention Guinn in any recent post and the only time I ever have was in response to one of your lame arguments. In 35 years of debating this subject online, I have never come across anyone who exhibits less integrity in his arguments than you. It speaks volumes about the weakness of your arguments that you have to lie so blatantly to make them. You are truly pathetic.

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.

The biggest liar on this or any other forum is calling me a liar.

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. . . .(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?

As a general rule, that's probably true. Unless he has studied cases of how a Carcano bullet reacts when striking a skull, it really isn't pertinent.

But, of course, I'm fairly certain you'll just continue to lie, duck, dodge, grasp, and blunder about this fact.

I don't need to lie to make my points. Thut's your ballgame.

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 notice you offered nothing that refutes my statement regarding how few homicides are committed with all rifles with all types of ammo. Lots of homicides are committed with FMJ ammo. Most of them are from handguns, which aren't relevant to this discussion.

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).

How many homicides do you think they have studied which shows what a FMJ Carcano bullet will do when striking a human skull. I only know of one case in which that happened. It is poor science to assume that all FMJ bullets will behave the same way when striking a human skull. I have no doubt you will now accuse me of dodging when in reality I'm applying critical thinking to your claims, something you should have done for yourself.

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.

I seriously doubt they have studied that many cases of FMJ RIFLE ammo and certainly not FMJ Carcano ammo which is quite rare.

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.

You continue to fail to grasp that without case studies of FMJ Carcano ammo striking skulls, these studies have limited value in determining how such bullets will behave when striking skulls. The people who have made these observations were not addressing that question so it is understandable why they would not consider such ammo when making their general observations. Without specific studies of the type of ammo used by LHO, it is poor science to categorically state what such ammo would do. When the Haags did their experiments for the NOVA program, they used the same type of rifle and ammo that LHO used because that is what is relevant to the issues they were addressing.