And once again you pretend to know what Siebert and O'Neill meant by the word missile. You asked me to show you and FBI document that referred to bullet fragments as missiles. Why don't you show me where either of those men said the missiles they referred to were whole bullets. If neither of us can produce the requested documentation, it remains an open question. But once again, you choose to assume what you cannot prove. SOP.
You sound like a woke liberal who can't figure out what the word "woman" means.
In their six-page 11/26/1963 report on the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill used the term "missile" to refer to bullets four times (pp. 3-4). Moreover, they distinguished between "missile/bullet" and bullet fragments:
The largest section of this missile as portrayed on x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull. . . . (p. 3)They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments as just that -- fragments:
. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . . An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)In referring the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes. . . . the trajectory of the missile entering at this point. . . . the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance. (p. 4)Gee, Sibert and O'Neill didn't seem to have any doubt or confusion about missiles vs. fragments in their report on the autopsy. So they certainly would not have referred to the two small fragments removed from the right orbit as a missile in their receipt to Captain Stover.
The word "missile" is commonly used as a synonym for "bullet" in forensic and investigative sources. For example:
-- In the HSCA FPP's report, the term "missile" is used to describe bullets 408 times, and the term "missile fragment" is used to describe bullet fragments 35 times (7 HSCA).
-- Chapter 3 of the Warren Report uses the term "missile" to refer to bullets 20 times.
-- During the WC hearing on May 6, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 15 times (14 times by Arlen Specter and one time by ballistics expert Dr. Alfred Olivier) (5 H 62-169).
-- During the WC hearings from March 21-25, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 158 times, variously by Specter, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Jones, Dr. Akin, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Shires, (6 H 4-143).
-- In the JFK autopsy report, the term "missile" is used to refer to bullets six times.
My online source did not show him as an HSCA witness. I'm not saying that is absolute proof.
That should tell you something about your "online source."
So if you know what Osborne testified to before the HSCA, why don't you tell us what he said.
Oh my goodness. Once again we see that you have no business pretending to be any kind of a serious JFKA researcher. Osborne's HSCA interview is paraphrased and discussed in the FPP's report (7 HSCA 9, 10, 15-16). It has also been quoted and discussed in dozens of JFKA books.
Did he say he and Siebert received whole bullets at the autopsy? I think I already know the answer to that.
Oh, boy. For starters, you are confusing Captain Osborne with Captain Stover. The Sibert and O'Neill receipt was addressed to Captain Stover, not Captain Osborne.
As I've already pointed out to you, Stover said he saw a whole bullet, and he added that he recalled that the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said it was.
Sibert and O'Neill acknowledged in their 11/22/63 receipt that they received a bullet ("missile") from Stover. As we see from Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, they knew the difference between a missile and fragments.
I wouldn't trust Lifton if he said water is wet.
LOL! Umm, so do you think Lifton faked all those recorded interviews? That the voices on the recordings are not the voices of the witnesses he interviewed?! Do you think the transcripts of Lifton's interviews published by the ARRB are all fake?!
I know that they all agreed JFK was xxxx in the back of the head and that fits with the WC finding that Oswald fired the xxxx from the sniper's nest. None of them found any medical evidence of a frontal xxxx from either the GK or through the windshield which are things you have claimed.
I've answered this silly dodge at least three times, but you just keep repeating it. You apparently just don't have the frontal-lobe capacity to grasp the obvious fact that a difference of 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of the head makes an enormous difference in the bullet's possible trajectories and potential origin.
And I again point out that one of the FPP members, Dr. Wecht, said there was evidence in the skull x-rays that was consistent with a frontal shot.
Tell us why it matters if they all agreed JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. You seem to have this idiotic belief that if the FPP placed the entry incorrectly, it negates the finding that JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. You fail to appreciate that the entire upper right side of JFK's skull was shattered and the autopsy team had peeled back the scalp during the autopsy.
The FPP had to try to reconstruct JFK's 3D skull from 2D pictures and photos. Not something they would have done during an actual medico-legal autopsy. So if the didn't get the entry wound placed exactly right, it doesn't negate the finding that JFK was shot in the back of the head.
The only thing that is "idiotic" is your brain-dead silliness that it makes no difference if the FPP was wrong about the rear head entry site. How can you not grasp the self-evident fact that a difference of 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of the head drastically changes the bullet's possible trajectories and potential origin?
Similarly, how can you not understand that if the cowlick site is invalid, which it demonstrably is, then that leaves only the EOP site, and that if the EOP site is correct, then the brain photos cannot possibly be authentic?
We also have the findings of forensic neuropathologist Dr. Peter Cummings, who identified the entry point based on the radiating fracture lines from that point of entry. That also validates the finding the headshot struck JFK from behind.
LOL! So now you're hitching your wagon to the cowlick site!
You obviously didn't realize that Cummings simply repeated the FPP's claim about the fracture lines as evidence of the cowlick site. Did it occur to you to ask yourself why Cummings didn't explain the fact that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex directly beneath the impact point of the cowlick site?
Did it occur to you to ask why Cummings didn't explain how in the world Humes, Finck, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer could have mistaken a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound in a location in a different skull bone and above the obvious reference points of the lambda and the lambdoid suture, not to mention the EOP -- how they could have mistaken a wound in that location for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower, in the occipital bone, 1 cm above the EOP, and only about 1.5 inches above the hairline?
Sheesh, you must be kidding. A first-year med student would not make such an unbelievable blunder, much less three pathologists, a radiologist, and a chief autopsy photographer.
Now tell use what evidence any qualified forensic medical examiner has identified that indicates a frontal shot. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
This is another one of your disingenuous arguments that I've answered many times, but you just keep repeating it.
Of course, you now that a number of medical experts have identified evidence of a frontal shot in the autopsy materials, but you wave them aside because they are not medical examiners, never mind that they include a forensic anthropologist (Dr. Ubelaker), a neuroscientist (Dr. Riley), a diagnostic radiologist (Dr. Robertson), a neurologist (Dr. Chesser), two radiation oncologists (Dr. Mantik and Dr. Henkelmann, one of whom -- Dr. Mantik -- is also a physicist and licensed in radiology), a physiologist (BSc Kent), and a physicist (Dr. Snyder).
And, of course, you know that a number of experts, including forensic pathologists, have pointed out that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
You further know that every single medical expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head has said the skull damage incidates the ammo was traveling at a high velocity. These experts include the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the autopsy doctors themselves, the FPP, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. DeSalles, Dr. Henkelmann, etc., etc.
Ah, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. I knew Bob Artwohl from the Prodigy group we were both members of in the early 1990s. I remember that he started out as a CT but converted to being an ardent LN during the few years we were on that service. I haven't seen anything Bob has written in at least two decades but unless he has done a 180 on the subject, he still believes JFK was shot in the back of the head. Can you quote him ever saying otherwise.
This is childish. No one is denying that a bullet hit the back of the head, but it makes all the difference in the world where the bullet struck. If you lack the capacity to grasp that a difference of 4 inches in the location on the back of the head makes a huge difference in the bullet's possible trajectories and origin, you have no business posting in this forum.
Why do you suppose the WC had to assume that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet hit the back of the head? Why did they have to do that? As you surely must understand, they had to assume such a drastic forward lean because that was the only way they could get the EOP site to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window.
I suspect you actually do understand these things but won't admit it because you know that admitting this would destroy your phony argument that the location of the entry site is not important.
Dr. Artwohl deserves great credit for being willing to admit that when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, he confirmed Dr. Riley's observation that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the exact spot of the cowlick site. Dr. Mantik has likewise confirmed this.
Again, why do you suppose Dr. Cummings said nothing about this crucial fact? Huh? Probably because he knows nothing about it because he has done little research on the case and was basing his conclusion on a drive-by examination of the skull x-rays. This should tell you that forensic pathologists are not infallible, hey?
You seem at a loss to explain why the Secret Service would send the fragmented bullet to the FBI but send the whole bullet to the autopsy team. I've posed that question several times during this thread and you have dodged it each and every time. You claim it is a silly question because you can't come up with an answer to it that makes sense. There is no reason whatsoever for the Secret Service to send that bullet to Bethesda.
I've answered this silly question before by pointing out that it's based on your false, baseless assumption that the Secret Service sent the deformed limo bullet to the autopsy or even handled the deformed bullet before Humes received it.
You are still dancing and blundering around the fact that Dr. Young confirmed his recollection about the finding of the bullet with Chief Mills before sending material to Specter, that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that the bullet he saw arrived to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said.
No one ever claimed that the Secret Service brought the bullet to the autopsy, much less that the Secret Service found a bullet in the limo. You've just made up this nonsense in order to avoid explaining the evidence for Dr. Young's account.
I am not forced to accept your amateurish opinion about the brain photos.
Let me repeat what I've told you before when you've floated this silly dodge: The FPP majority said that the brain photos categorically refute the EOP site because they show no damage to the right occipital lobe and no damage to the cerebellum, since the absence of such damage would be a physical impossibility if a bullet entered 1 cm above the EOP.
So we're not talking about my "amateurish opinion." According to the FPP's argument, if the brain photos are authentic, they absolutely refute the EOP site.
Here, too, I suspect that you actually understand this but just don't want to admit it because then you'd have to explain how a bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe and the cerebellum.
The exact placement of the entry wound is not the important question. What is important to identifying the shooter is to determine from where the shot was fired from. If the autopsy team placed the entry wound correctly and the FPP placed it wrong, the shot came from behind. If the autopsy team placed the wound wrong and the FPP got it right, the shot came from behind. Either way, it fits with the conclusion that Oswald fired the shot which is what matters to me.
I'll tell you what: Go talk with a high-school geometry teacher and ask them to explain why a difference of a 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of a human skull makes an enormous difference in the bullet's potential trajectories and origin.
I have a hard time believing that you don't understand this. This is not rocket science. But, on the off chance that you really don't understand this, go talk with a high-school geometry teacher.
You on the other hand want an excuse to deny that the shot came from behind, which means all the medical examiners got it wrong and you got it right. That is less likely than I am going to win the next Powerball drawing.
LOL! Uh, you're the one who's now saying that the autopsy pathologists who actually saw and handled the rear head entry wound committed the astonishing blunder of placing the wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone when it was supposedly 4 inches higher, in the parietal bone, above the lambda, 1.2 cm above the lambdoid suture!
Moreover, in claiming that the skull x-rays are unaltered, you're saying that the autopsy pathologists, along with the radiologist, mistook a fragment trail that was near the top of the head and whose highest point was near the rear of the head for a fragment trail that began 4 inches lower and whose highest point was at the very front of the skull!
Speaking of which, you still have not explained why the autopsy pathologists said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony.
You still are hung up on the exact placement of the entry wound and not the direction the shot came from, which is what really matters.
Again, I don't believe you are this clueless. Well, maybe you are, but I suspect you know better than this silly argument.
A shot to the head "from behind" could have come from a number of different shooting positions, which is why it is so vital to establish the location of the rear head entry wound. A shot from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building would have come "from behind." A shot from an upper or lower floor of the County Records Building would have come "from behind." A shot from a window in the western half of the TSBD's sixth floor would have come "from behind." A shot from a lower floor of the TSBD would have come "from behind."
So, obviously, knowing the location of the rear head entry wound is vital for determining from which position behind JFK the bullet could have been fired. It is a frivolous dodge to pretend that all that matters is that the bullet came from behind.
