Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Fourth Edition of "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"  (Read 5341 times)

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
This is yet another one of your dishonest juvenile dodges in which you once again hilariously dismiss the science of wound-ballistics testing. Obviously, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your grasping fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than other FMJ bullets, because then, among other things, you'd have to explain why the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test did not even fragment after penetrating skull bone.

As usual, you have things bassackwards. You are the one who is asserting that a Carcano bullet could not have been the one that struck JFK in the head because of the way it fragmented so the burden is on you to prove that. The simple fact is a fragmented Carcano bullet is the only one recovered from the limo so that is prima facia evidence it was the one that caused the head wound. No other bullets or fragments from any other bullet was recovered in the limo which would be a very strange occurrence if another type of bullet had struck JFK in the head. Maybe it was one of those magic bullets that completely vanish after striking the victim.
Quote

DiMaio was talking about the behavior of all FMJ bullets, period. DiMaio certainly would have said something if the millions of 6.5 mm FMJ bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company behaved differently than other FMJ bullets, especially since tens of thousands of those bullets were still being used when he wrote the first and second editions of his book (first edition in 1985, second in 1999).

BTW, WCC produced 4 million 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in 1954 alone.

Of those 4 million FMJ Carcano bullets, how many were determined to have struck a victim in the head? I know of only one such case. Apparently you don't know of any others either.
Quote

You keep making false statements about the number of headshot wound-ballistics tests that have used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ ammo: the WC's test, Lattimer's test, and DeSalles' test, all of which failed to duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. Are you ever going to explain why the x-rays of the test skulls in the WC's test show bullet fragmentation that looks nothing like that seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, both in the number of fragments and in their distribution patterns?

I have told you on numerous occasions that every shooting is unique and that it is almost impossible to perfectly duplicate any shooting. Perhaps you can point to a case in which that was done.
Quote


And let me just remind you, again, that your side's leading wound-ballistics experts, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the bullets that Oswald allegedly used would never, ever have deposited a fragment from their cross-section on the outer table of a skull at or near the entry point.

When did Larry Sturdivan end up on my side. You have this quirky idea that all LNs think alike.
Quote

Finally, I notice you said nothing about your gaffe that the distance a bullet travels is irrelevant to how it performs. This is so typical of you: you make a blundering, idiotic claim and then you either refuse to acknowledge your blunder when it is pointed out to you or you blame the blunder on some faulty source that you should have known better than to consult in the first place.

I said velocity is what matters to how a bullet will behave when striking an object.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:41:57 PM by John Corbett »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213

When did Larry Sturdivan end up on my side. You have this quirky idea that all LNs think alike.

Just so you know,  a bullet fragment was not deposited on the outer table of the skull at or near the entry point. Sturdivan had trouble understanding what that "6.5 mm" object was doing in the back of the head, and for good reason.  It was not in the back of the head. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye.

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2026
    • JFK Assassination Website
​
Just so you know,  a bullet fragment was not deposited on the outer table of the skull at or near the entry point. Sturdivan had trouble understanding what that "6.5 mm" object was doing in the back of the head, and for good reason.  It was not in the back of the head. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye.

LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! ​I had mistakenly assumed you had abandoned this fiction after our last exchange on the subject, but I see I assumed too much.

​So, let me just briefly repeat the facts ​that I documented for you the last time ​I dealt with this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment above the right orbit: the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (JPG, regular size)

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (PDF, enlarged)

As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object, is about 1/4 inch to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and has an obviously different shape than the 6.5 mm object.​

Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:18:08 AM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! Let me just briefly repeat the facts I documented for you the last time you floated this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit -- the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment

As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object and has an obviously different shape.

Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.

=========

And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray."
-- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.  - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

===========

THERE IS A METALLIC FRAGMENT ABOVE THE SINUS APPEARING TO BE  BETWEEN THE BONY TABLES OF THE FRONTAL BONE
-  Dr. G. M. McDonnel, in his report to the HSCA concerning Observation, analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy.
============

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing at the fragment that my red arrow is pointing at in the lateral view below.