You sound like a woke liberal who can't figure out what the word "woman" means.
We can add this one to the long list of assumptions you have made which are dead wrong.
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:
So now you think Siebert and O'Neill were qualified radiologists.
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)
He is using the terms section of a missile and fragments interchangeably.
They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments as just that -- fragments:
Damn, your reading comprehension is bad. He referred to the 7x2mm object as a "section of a missile" and the 3x1mm object as a "fragment". In truth they were both fragments. It's kind of like calling JFK's vehicle a limo in one sentence and a car in another. Both are correct.
. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . .
Ya, that's the one he called a section of a missile.
An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)[/font]
Ya that's the smaller of the two objects.
In referring the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":
Yes, they did. Now tell us where they referred to any of the metallic objects found during the autopsy as bullets. [/quote]
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) [/quote]
An erroneous assessment of the wound. In fact, it was the probe that only penetrated a short distance. It would be preposterous to believe a bullet would only penetrate a few inches into JFK's back. Even low velocity handgun ammo has far more penetrating power than that. For example, the .38 Special round Ruby fired into the right side of Oswald's ammo ended up bulging out the skin on his left side without breaking the skin, shredding the organs in between leading to Oswald's demise. You pretend to be an expert on all things related to the JFKA and yet you seem baffled by this simple concept.
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.
At no time during the autopsy does their report indicate a whole bullet was found. Using the quotes you supplied, they mention two fragments were found. Their receipt indicated they received two missiles. For your argument that the term missile was only used in reference to whole bullets, we would have to believe that both two fragments and two whole bullets were found during the autopsy but Siebert and O'Neill only took possession of the whole bullets. Why wouldn't they have taken possession of both fragments and whole bullets. What do you suppose the autopsy team did with the fragments if they were not given to Siebert and O'Neill?
That should tell you something about your "online source."
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.
You apparently believe everything you read in these JFKA books. You seem to have no filterl
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.
It would probably be fascinating to know how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I wrote. It wouldn't make sense, but would still probably be fascinating.
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.
Please cite your source for that quote.
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.
The receipt does not say bullet, much as you wish it did. It used the term "missiles" and there were two of them, the same number of fragments found at autopsy.
LOL! Umm, so do you think Lifton faked all those recorded interviews?
Based on all the other
he made up, why wouldn't he have lied about the interviews too?
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?!
Lifton was a proven liar. The stuff he made up is so fantastic that only a fool would believe him. Do you believe JFK's body was snatched and clandestine surgery was performed on it prior to it being delivered to Bethesda?
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.
You win the Anthony Marsh Award for this comment. Whenever he was faced with a question he didn't want to or couldn't answer, he would fall back on the "I've already answered that" dodge. Then he would follow it up with "Learn to google".
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.
I don't suppose you can provide a quote for that. Wecht based his opinion of a frontal shot on the Z-film which showed JFK falling backward following the headshot which is no indication of which way the bullet was traveling that struck JFK in the head. It is a myth that bullets can throw bodies around like they are ragdolls. A bullet has far too little mass to move an adult human any significant distance. The Z-film did indicate JFK's head moved forward a few inches when the bullet struck. Wecht agreed with the finding that a bullet had struck JFK in the back of the head. That was obvious to anyone trained in forensic pathology. At the mock trial in London he tried to claim that a near simultaneous shot hit JFK in the front of the head and Bugliosi made him look silly. If Wecht was right, that would pretty much shoot the acoustic evidence which didn't indicate a simultaneous
shot from the GK.
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?
If doesn't make a difference to the important question which is where was the headshot fired from. The angular difference for shots at the two possible entry points would be negligible. Both are compatible with the head shot coming from the sniper's nest.
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?
You are the only one I've seen argue that the brain phots are incompatible with an EOP entry. I don't doubt that you might have located a ophthalmologist somewhere who shares that opinion.
LOL! So now you're hitching your wagon to the cowlick site!
I haven't hitched my wagon to either site. We have two groups of medical examiners who have issued different opinions on precisely where on the head the bullet struck JFK. How am I supposed to determine which of those groups is correct, having only seen a few copies of photos and x-rays and even if I had seen all the photos any x-rays, I wouldn't be able to make an informed judgement about them. Unlike you, I'm smart enough to know what I don't know and I don't try to substitute my opinion for that of people who have seen far more than I have and are far more qualified than I am to make such judgements. You, on the other hand, continue to delude yourself into believing that your opinions of the medical evidence have any validity.
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?
Of course that didn't occur to me because I have no expertise in forensic medicine. Neither do you but at least I know that. That's why I choose to believe the people who know what they are talking about and you continue to pretend you are one of those people.
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.
Even a first year med student knows far more than you do.
This is another one of your disingenuous arguments that I've answered many times, but you just keep repeating it.
I'm sorry, but you aren't eligible to win a second Anthony Marsh Award.
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).
Which of these guys had training and experience in the field of forensic pathology? When your car breaks down, do you call a plumber?
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.
That's an amazing statement given that two of the fragments found on the floor of the limo were positively matched to Oswald's rifle. How do you suppose that happened?
You further know that every single medical expert who hascommented 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.
Here's where I could act like you and make an issue of all the typos you have made in the above paragraph but I'm not that anal.
As for your comment, define what these sources considered high velocity. Without such a definition of what constitutes high velocity, the comment is meaningless.
This is childish. No one is denying that a bullet hit te 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.
Explain how moving the entry point 4 inches would change where the shot was fired from.
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?
Did they assume that? I must have missed that conclusion. The Z-film does show JFK was leaning forward and to his left when the bullet struck his head, but I never bothered to measure it.
Why did they have to do that?
First tell me where the WCR says 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'll wait for your cite of the WCR that backs up what you claim it says.
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.
The precise entry point is not necessary to determine where the shot was fired from. It's enough to know that the bullet struck the back of his head, which you have acknowledged it did.
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.
Goody.
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?
Why would I be so pretentious as to speak for Dr. Cummings?
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.
I don't recall saying that. I don't recall even thinking that. You must be confused. I have never taken the position that the Secret Service sent any bullet to Bethesda, deformed or otherwise. I have simply asked you a critical question which you seem to have no answer for.
For the record, this was the final sentence of my comment:
"There is no reason whatsoever for the Secret Service to send that bullet to Bethesda."
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.
You apparently think that a 38 year old memory is a reliable indicator of what actually happened?
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.
Of course they didn't bring a bullet to the autopsy. There would be no reason for them to do that. You are the one who has claimed the bullet(s) found by the Secret Service in the limo were delivered to Bethesda. You seem to have no explanation for why they would have done that.
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.
I have no reason to explain your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence.
So we're not talking about my "amateurish opinion."
We aren't, but I am.
According to the FPP's argument, if the brain photos are authentic, they absolutely refute the EOP site.
Thank you once again for your amateurish opinion.
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.
Very little of what I've read of your writings the past 35 years has made any sense 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.
Either placement of the entry wound is compatible with the shot having been fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
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.
i don't need to talk to a high school geometry teacher to know that moving the entry wound 4 inches is going to have a negligible effect on the downward angle of a shot from the sniper's nest. Just how much do you think that would change the angle of a shot from 88 yards away?
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!
You continue to pretend I have stated which placement of the entry wound I think was correct. My position on the exact point of entry is I don't know and I don't care. Neither placement of the entry wound negates the fact the shot was fired from the sniper's nest which is where all the forensic evidence indicates it was fired from.
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!
You don't get to tell me what I'm saying. I speak for myself.
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.
Why would I even try to explain that. Do you think I can read their minds?
Again, I don't believe you are this clueless.
Well, maybe you are, but I suspect you know better than this silly argument.
It gives me a great deal of comfort that you think that. I would worry if you ever agreed with me.
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."
You seem to be overlooking one important detail. There is no evidence of a shot from any of those locations you mentioned. ALL the physical evidence points to the 6th floor sniper's nest.
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.
The physical evidence alone tells use where the shot originated from. You spend all your efforts inventing excuses not to believe what that physical evidence tells us.
