A small metallic fragment lies medial to the fracture site between the galea and the outer table of the skull. . . .
A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table. (“Report of G.M. McDonnel,” August 4, 1978, in 7 HSCA 218, 221).
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185, emphasis added)
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (E-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998, in David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 21)
I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.
[From your first link:]When i say hits i mean it misses JFK & hits the signal arm & then it fragments.
(1) The remnant slug puts a non-round hole in the floor of the limo tween the jump seats (we have a photo) & hits the road.
(2) The copper jacket breaks into 2 pieces as is usual (it is made of 2 pieces joined together), giving us CE567 CE569 found in the car.
(3) Small lead fragments hit JFK in the back of his head (as seen on xrays).
(4) Other larger lead fragments found in the limo might belong to Oswald's shot-1 or they might belong to Hickey's AR15.
However i reckon that Oswald's shot-1 happened at Z113
This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?If u have a look at my thread/link u will see that Holland reckoned that JFK was obstructed by the signal arm at (pseudo) Z103. I reckoned it woz at (psueudo) Z113. The diff being a half limo length (10 ft @ 1 Z frame per ft). I am happy to split the diff, in which case Oswald shot-1 woz at say (pseudo) Z108.
Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z207, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.
Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.
WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.
There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry Sturdivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.
There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:
Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of them.
However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.
Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)
However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.
Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.
So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.
Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.
In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:
The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that Sturdivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.
Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.
There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.
Humes: Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI. --- ARRB Deposition
This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.
There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.
Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.
And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.
Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.
The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there.
Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by one of the techs who took them.
When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?
Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull.
It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?
When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?
Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.
This is just comical, and rather odd. It's like you don't understand what's being said to you, or you just can't bring yourself to deal with it. Let's get a few things straight:
One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it. Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.
[...]
One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it.
Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.
Two, again, you can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Both are visible. One is not the other. A 6.5 mm object is not a 7 x 2 mm object. What do you not understand about this basic truth of reality?
Every single expert panel or private expert that has examined the AP x-ray has identified the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on that x-ray. It is ludicrous to suggest that some version of the AP x-ray does not show both objects.
Three, when the ARRB specifically asked Humes about the 6.5 mm object, he said he did not see it during the autopsy. So, obviously, he did not remove it, and, equally obviously, it was not the fragment he was talking about with Specter.
Four, Reed and Custer most certainly did not "identify it without hesitation" during the autopsy.
Five, I notice you again ignored the fact that OD measurements confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, and even Larry Sturdivan has conceded that the object is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment but that it must be an artifact. The only question is, how was this artifact created? So, it is just silly and strange that you keep claiming that Humes removed it during the autopsy. Not only did Humes tell the ARRB that he did not see it during the autopsy, but we now know from hard scientific evidence that the object is not metallic.
Six, OD measurements confirm that inside the 6.5 mm object is a 2.5 mm bullet fragment. This fragment is not readily visible to the naked eye, because its image is obscured by the bright 6.5 mm object, but it is visible under high magnification, and its metallic nature is confirmed by OD measurements.
Seven, I notice you once again ignored the McDonnel fragment. Why do you keep ignoring this crucial piece of evidence?
The 7 x 2 mm fragment was above and somewhat behind the right eye. So again, why haven't you posted the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them?
That is false. Humes, Reed and Custer all viewed the AP X-Ray and identified the "6.5 mm" object seen on it as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.
The fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye.
You would go a long way towards making your case by posting the enhanced lateral X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. When will you do so? When? Seriously, just go ahead and do it. And while you're at it, in the AP view, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.
Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed.
A. Two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.
_______________________________________
Page 212
Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray.
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213
Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe.
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size.
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others.
I didn't say that they identified it during the autopsy. Although, they both did. I said that they identified it immediately when shown the enhanced AP X-ray.
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 ofthe 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.[/i]
There is a metallic fragment about 9 or 1O cm above the external occipital protuberance, which metallic fragment is apparently imbedded in the outer table of the skull. On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2 .5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda. (David O. Davis, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 7 HSCA 222, Addendum D)
I reject the validity of your OD measurements claims. You are claiming that precise measurements can be made in those X-Rays, when in reality the X-Rays are poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine, which was used for the sole purpose of locating any bullets or large fragments that might have been in the body.
In the HSCA report you’ll find this very blurred image of the original right lateral skull x-ray (actually the inventory lists two left lateral skull x-rays). Looking at this image in the report would make you think that this x-ray is in horrible condition, and that the anterior half of the skull was so dim that no useful information could be obtained. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The actual original x-rays are in excellent condition, showing only minor aging, and this blurred copy doesn’t represent the original film well. This blurred image is very misleading – the purported reason for the need to enhance the x-rays was the poor image quality – that simply isn’t true. (https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)
The McDonnel fragment is the one that he describes as being "A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object]". McDonnel erroneously placed the "6.5 mm" fragment on the back of the skull. The small fragment that he described was likely the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes, which he said was in close proximity to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.
Is this some kind of joke? Both the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel identified both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6 x 5 mm object on the AP x-ray, and both panels rejected the absurd idea that the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed was really the 6.5 mm object. It is astounding that you refuse to come to grips with this fact.
You continue to argue that the 6.5 mm object is actually a bullet fragment and that Humes removed it during the autopsy, when nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is not, and could not be, a bullet fragment. What's more, Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. The 6.5 mm object is, well, 6.5 mm. Again, it is just amazing that you cannot face these facts.
No, they did not, and your quotes do not actually say this. You are inferring something they did not say.
You're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?
I did not say it was removed from "frontal skull bone." I said it was removed from the frontal part of the skull. I was not referring to bone but to the frontal area of the head.
Really? Take a look at this graphic:
(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5723eaf525a7ff2f052548e18b45caaae07aae32/2-Figure1-1.png)
See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.
Or, look at Figure 17 on page 111 of Volume 7 of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. This is an enlargement of the enhanced AP x-ray. You can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Perhaps this graphic will help:
(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5723eaf525a7ff2f052548e18b45caaae07aae32/2-Figure2-1.png)
See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.
Now, let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:
Additionally, how could a 6.5 mm object be a 7 x 2 mm object? Did no one at the autopsy know how to measure? This is ludicrous.
Of course they identified it when shown the AP x-ray during their interviews! No kidding! As I've noted dozens of times in this forum, the 6.5 mm object is the most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, which makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that the object was on the x-rays at the autopsy but that everyone "missed" it.
Reed was either lying or misremembering. If he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, why isn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Custer, in all his many hours of interviews with Dr. Mantik, never say that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy? Why did Humes say he did not see it during the autopsy? Why didn't Ebersole mention the object during this testimony? Why did Ebersole refuse to discuss the 6.5 mm objecen Dr. Mantik asked him about it in what had been, up to that point, a very friendly and open interview? Why did Finck and Boswell both say that they did not see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy?
Custer obviously goofed.
Ah, so here we have it! You reject the established science of optical density measurement on x-rays because the results of two independent OD analyses of the autopsy skull x-rays prove that those x-rays have been altered. I'm guessing you don't care that two scientists independently did OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays and that their measurements match almost perfectly. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Arthur Haas, who was the chief of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics at the time, proof-read Dr. Mantik's first OD study on the x-rays. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a radiation oncologist and physicist, after reviewing Dr. Mantik's two most recent OD analyses of the autopsy x-rays, says that "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology." I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were confirmed by Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who also did OD measurements on JFK's premortem x-rays in Boston.
As for your claim that the autopsy x-rays are "poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine," even Dr. Ebersole said that the GE 250 x-ray machine that they used was good enough for their purpose, which was to locate bullet fragments.
LOL! Oh, so McDonnel "erroneously" placed the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull?! Really?
Well, again, the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel also placed the object on the back of the skull! Dr. Davis placed the object on the back of the skull. The ARRB's three forensic experts placed the object on the back of the skull. Even Dr. Lattimer placed the object in the back of the skull! What in the world are you talking about? Do you understand how silly your claims are here?
No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.
Are you ever going to deal with Larry Sturdivan's observations on why the 6.5 mm object simply cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment? His compelling case on this issue is the reason that nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is an artifact. The only issue is whether the artifact was created accidentally or intentionally. Yet, here you are, apparently caught in a time warp, still arguing that the object is a bullet fragment.
BTW, your google.com links are not working.
I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.
Is that the same HSCA medical panel that confirmed that the autopsy X-Rays were authentic and unaltered?
Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm.
Reed's and Custer's words speak for themselves.
[SNIP]
The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from the right orbital ridge.
Boswell initially said that he didn't recognize it but later allowed that it could very well be the fragment. Finck did not say that he did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He said that he didn't remember seeing it but added "But that doesn't mean I didn't see it. It means I don't recall."
There is a fragment seen in the lateral view that looks to be in the frontal skull bone. I just wanted to be sure that you were not claiming that it is the one removed by Humes.
Wait. What? You are claiming that the fragment imbedded in the forehead was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes? Am I understanding you correctly? In what world could that reasonably be considered to be somewhat behind the right eye?
BTW, your google.com links are not working.
As I said, that's Humes basically acknowledging that the '6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.
Again, Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm. Or approximated anyway.
They didn't miss it at the autopsy.
Ahh, so Reed was lying eh? LOL! The 6.5 mm fragment is mentioned in the autopsy report. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye. Why do you ask the same questions multiple times in a single post?
LOL!
I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.
Which is exactly what I said.
Really.
They were all wrong.
[Long quote from one of Dr. Joseph Riley's articles SNIPPED]
Yes it is.
Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
Sturdivan said that it could not be a FMJ bullet fragment on the back of the skull. He's right. It wasn't on the back of the skull. It was above and somewhat behind the right eye.
Okay, this will be my last reply to you. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense and evasion. A few final thoughts:
Virtually no one accepts everything that the HSCA medical panel said, but you can't even accept something as basic as the location of the 6.5 mm object, even though the HSCA placement of the object has been confirmed by all the experts who have examined the x-rays, with the sole exception of Dr. Joseph Riley and retired x-ray technician Jerrol Custer.
You pounce on Riley's placement of the 6.5 mm object, but I'm guessing you do not accept Riley's finding that two bullets struck JFK in the head, right? Here are two of Riley's articles in which he makes the case that two bullets must have struck Kennedy's skull:
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf
And, again, Custer did not do an in-depth analysis of the skull x-rays. He gave his opinion about the location of the 6.5 mm object while being shown the skull x-rays during his ARRB interview. An opinion given under such circumstances can hardly be considered a conclusion that was based on careful, prolonged analysis.
But, nah, you'll take Custer's off-the-cuff placement and Riley's placement over the placement of
-- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz)
-- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. Lattimer
-- Dr. McDonnel
-- Dr. Chesser
-- Dr. Aguilar
-- Dr. Henkelmann
-- Dr. Mantik
-- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner)
Your rejection of the OD evidence is beyond lame. It smacks of deliberate evasion and a conscious refusal to deal honestly with data. By the way, the location of the 6.5 mm object has nothing to do with its OD measurements, so it is downright silly for you to say that you reject Dr. Mantik's peer-reviewed OD analysis because you think he's wrong about the location of the 6.5 mm object.
You once again quoted Reed and Custer to the effect that they saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, but Custer's comment, as I've discussed at length, does not necessarily support your argument. Only Reed unequivocally claimed to have seen the object on the x-rays during the autopsy. Again, in all of his many hours of discussions with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, Custer never once claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.
There's also the fact that (1) the autopsy report makes no mention of the 6.5 mm object; (2) Dr. Ebersole said nothing about the object in his HSCA testimony; (3) Dr. Ebersole refused to discuss the object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it; (4) Dr. Finck said nothing about the object in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind; and (5) there is no plausible, credible explanation for how the object/artifact could have been accidentally created on the x-rays during the autopsy.
Your twisting of Sturdivan's observations on the 6.5 mm object is embarrassing. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object, the one that you absurdly claim is the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed, is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment. He says the object is an artifact that was accidentally created on the AP x-ray during the autopsy. This means there was no bullet fragment in that location in the skull. So how could Humes have removed it How could he have removed something that was not there?
You are misrepresenting what Humes, Finck, and Boswell said about the 6.5 mm object. I already documented that Humes plainly and clearly stated, when asked specifically about the object, that it was much larger than any of the fragments that he removed and that he did not recall seeing such a large fragment when he examined the x-rays during the autopsy. That's what he said, in plain English, but you refuse to admit it.
In the face of the autopsy doctors' statements that they did not recall seeing the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, you cling to the fact that two of them added the caveat that they may have seen it but no longer remembered seeing it. But, if they saw it during the autopsy, why does the autopsy report say nothing about it? Why didn't Ebersole say anything about it? Why didn't Finck mention it in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind? Why didn't Custer mention having seen it in any of his many interviews with Dr. Mantik? (Mantik and Custer developed a friendship and discussed the autopsy x-rays on many occasions.)
I documented that McDonnel noted that the small fragment that he identified was in the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull," and that it was to the left of the 6.5 object. But, you still refuse to deal with this fragment in a rational manner and instead make the absurd argument that it is either the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes removed from the frontal area of the head or the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. This is impossible. The McDonnel fragment is between the galea and the rear outer table of the skull, and its location does not overlap the location of the 6.5 mm object--it is to the left of the object.
You can't deal rationally with the McDonnel fragment because that fragment can only be a ricochet fragment from a missed shot that the lone-gunman theory cannot credibly explain.
Finally, your refusal to admit that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray is nothing short of astonishing. In all my years of online discussions, I've never seen such an amazing refusal to acknowledge such an undeniable fact. I showed you concrete proof that the AP x-ray shows the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object, and that the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. Yet, you still refuse to accept this reality and offer only lame, comical evasions to avoid dealing with this self-evident fact.
I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy. . . . He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bone. . . .(ARRB interview transcript, 10/28/97, p. 144)
It is visible on the “anterior-posterior” X-ray as a very dense, 6.5-mm object that sits squarely in the middle of the right bony eye socket, or “orbit.”
This AP (Anterior-Posterior) X-Ray from JFK's autopsy shows a 6.5 mm notched circular object just left of the nose; this is alleged to be a cross-sectional fragment of the bullet which struck the head. Several implausibilities surround this object, as noted herein.
Of course, the object is not really “in” the eye socket; it is in the rear of the skull. It just “projects” through the orbit on the X-ray which “sees” through all the layers at once. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)
As most here know, before Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis of the 6.5 mm object, and before Dr. Sturdivan's wound ballistics analysis of the 6.5 mm object, the position stated by government panels and by WC apologists was that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was scraped off an FMJ bullet as it entered the alleged cowlick entry site in the back of the head.
But now that has all been exploded. The ARRB forensic experts debunked the cowlick entry site.
If the fragment is embedded in the supraorbital ridge, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain how a bullet that has a trajectory almost tangential to the skull [required by the assumption that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window] could fragment extensively in the superficial brain layers, have major portions of the bullet exit (based on fragments recovered in the limousine), yet a large fragment (which retains a circular profile) deviates down to penetrate the supraorbital ridge but no fragments are distributed along the pathway.
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.
The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .
However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.
First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration.
Second, the trajectory cannot be reconciled with the head shot shown in the Zapruder film. The HSCA conducted an extensive trajectory analysis based on the position of the head as seen in frame 312. Using the "high" entrance wound, the HSCA demonstrated that the trajectory could be aligned with "the southeast sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository" (HSCA 6:62). However, the trajectory of the occipital entrance wound differs significantly from the trajectory of the "high" entrance wound. The trajectories differ a minimum of 18 degrees in the horizontal plane and 5 degrees in the vertical plane. Even a cursory plotting of these differences in HSCA figures 11-11 and 11-12 (HSCA 6:41-42) demonstrates that the occipital entrance wound and associated subcortical wounds could not have been caused by a shot from the Texas School Book Depository corresponding to Zapruder frame 312/313.
An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, pp. 13-15, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph. (ARRB interview report, 1/26/96, p. 1)
ME: No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
NICKERSON: Yes it is.
ME: And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.
NICKERSON: Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg141831.html#msg141831)
Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.
Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.
Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.
The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.
The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.
For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:
The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.
For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.
Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)
How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.
And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.
Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.
Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry Sturdivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.
As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.
A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).
So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.
The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.
The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.
When a line is drawn from the original entrance wound described by Humes et al. to the fragment in the right supraorbital ridge, this line corresponds exactly to the cavitation wound. ("What Struck John: A Reinterpretation of the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The impression of "cowlick" in the photograph of the entrance wound in the scalp is simply that, an impression for which there is no empirical evidence. When objective measurements (including those provided by the HSCA) are made, the scalp wound is located near where it was described initially by Humes et al. . . .
The HSCA forensics panel provided an illustration of the back of the head showing the wound in the scalp (first figure, far left) and contended that this illustrated a wound in the "cowlick" area. There are numerous problems with this contention (see Riley, 1992). The single sole objective measurement provided by the HSCA is that the wound was located 13 cm from the first prominent crease in the neck. There are numerous problems with this description (e.g., how can it be 13 cm from the base of the neck and 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance?). However, when 13 cm is measured on a scale drawing (bottom, far left; bar represents 13 cm), the scalp wound is not located even remotely close to the "high" entrance wound. When this location is compared to the X-rays, it corresponds exactly to the point identified above (bottom, far right). ("What Struck John: A Reinterpretation of the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate (Attestation of Examination of Autopsy Photographs and Radiographs, 1/26/67, p. 3).
It is inexplicable that the Panel would assert that the large round fragment seen on the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray] corresponds to the fragment near the asserted entrance wound on the lateral x-ray. Comparing the frontal and lateral x-rays demonstrates that it is impossible that the images correspond to the same fragment. ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy," p. 9, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
The frontal x-ray of the head . . . shows a nearly circular density near the higher entry site that the panel identified as a bullet fragment deposited on the skull at entry. It appears to be a disk of something as dense as metal, with a small circular "bite" taken out of the lower edge. . . . This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP [the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, aka the HSCA medical panel] and is mentioned by Dr. Baden [chairman of the panel] as a "relatively large metal fragment". . . . It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC [FMJ] bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. In the Biophysics Lab tests, most of the test bullets' jackets ruptured about midway through the skulls. . . .
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out, . . there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on [from the side/sideways]. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray], it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the President's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the JFK Assassination, 2005, pp. 184-185)
On the AP X-ray, the authentic metal fragment lay at the anatomic right side of the 6.5 mm object, but it was located entirely inside of the 6.5 mm object. In fact, it appeared that the darkroom worker had positioned his double-exposed 6.5 mm image to precisely match the (anatomic) right border of the authentic metal fragment. Furthermore, by doing so, he had guaranteed that the 6.5 mm image would not be left without a partner image on the lateral X-ray. On the other hand, if he had not matched the 6.5 mm image to an authentic metal fragment, the 6.5 mm object would have had no partner image on the lateral X-ray, and the forgery would have been obvious. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 24-25)
In March 1978 Dr. McDonnel of Los Angeles examined the skull films for the panel and reported:
". . . There is elevation of the galea medial and lateral to the area of the fracture and metallic fragment in the occipital region [the 6.5 mm object]. A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment and fracture between the galea lying and the outer cranial table."
Such separation of the galea from the outer skull bones often occurs as a result of the dislocation of adjacent bone fragments and is seen in an explosive-type injury to the skull. The location of the metallic fragment inside the galea medial to the defect in the skull representing the initial penetration suggests that this separation commenced on initial impact allowing the tiny above-described missile fragment to be displaced medially within this space created by explosion (between the skull and its overlying galea). (7 HSCA 131-132)
WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.The "flakes" are not sliced off the bullet. I don't see why they could not be bullet lead.
....
Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.
In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:Sturdivan thought it might be an artifact in the film, which also makes no sense because it is seen on both views. I don't see where he considered that it was bullet lead.
. . .
Sturdivan thought it might be an artifact in the film, which also makes no sense because it is seen on both views. I don't see where he considered that it was bullet lead.
The projectile would only break into disks is a person were shot by something like a roll of coins. When the break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, somethings complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of the object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal s-ay, it should be even brighter when seen edge on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president's skull or scalp.
A metal fragment that cannot be a bullet fragment and appears on only one view of the x-ray would ordinarily be dismissed as an accidental artifact that somehow found its way to the top of the x-ray cassette, for that single exposure. It isn't unusual to see things fall out of the clothing or hair, especially on the tables in the Medical Examiner's Laboratory. Object such as metal buttons would easily cast a shadow on an x-ray. . . .
Question: Does anyone have pictures of both x-rays of the skull, one from the front and one from the side?
In any case, Sturdivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays. Hence, it must be an artifact. But we can decide for ourselves, if we can see both x-rays.
Here is Sturdivan's quote from his book "The JFK Myths", Chapter Ten (Bungled Autopsy), Page 193:I was referring to Sturdivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":
In any case, Sturdivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays.Maybe not when he wrote his book. He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.
(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6EHLrcN.jpg)
It's not an artifact, and it's not on the back of the skull. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye.
Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/b9/vXHqkElq_o.jpg)
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays
Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/b9/vXHqkElq_o.jpg)
I was referring to Sturdivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":Maybe not when he wrote his book. He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.
- "I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]….The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact (e-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998). " [as quoted in Mantik's 2015 article "The John F. Kennedy Autopsy x-Rays: The Sage of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"
While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise.It is not an artifact if it is seen on both views.
I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.The objection seems to be its roundness over about 3/4 of the fragment. That is what naturally happens when a molten drop of lead impacts a larger object or surface.
The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.
I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.It is not hard to find someone who knows how to read medical x-rays. I am always amazed at how dentists see things in dental x-rays.
Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.
Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.
. . .
Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets. But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial.
I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.
Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.
But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.
Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.
You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.
No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.
The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.
You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.
No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.
The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.
Dr. Joseph Dolce was a ballistic expert? That is a joke.
Dr. Joseph Dolce. What was he doctor of? Physics? Chemistry? No. He was a doctor. A medical doctor. Medical doctors are not ballistic experts. His connection to the Edgewood Arsenal? He was a consultant to the Biophysics Division of the Edgewood Arsenal. Not a ballistic expert. Just a consultant, based on his knowledge of medicine.
Question: Was Dr. Joseph Dolce a medical doctor?
Question: Are medical doctors also ballistic experts?
Any ballistic test that supports the SBT, is automatically considered "Rigged" by you.
Again, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a medical doctor who consults with ballistic experts but was not a ballistic expert himself, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
And let’s talk about Dr. Joseph Dolce a little bit. We can see what he wrote in a letter below. Search for the word “Dolce” the eight of nine occurrences will see the start a letter he wrote with the title:
My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination By Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, MD FACS
http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests#dolce-letter
As you alluded to, Dr. Joseph Dolce’s professional opinion is that two bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could not have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. But there is something else he says, that three bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Dr. Joseph Dolce was not a CTer but a LNer who believed that the evidence best supported the theory that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. But not with two bullets from Oswald rifle, but with three.
Again, you saw fit to without pertinent information from us. A habit of yours which, perhaps, you are not consciously aware of.
So, what you really want us to do, is accept Dr. Dolce’s professional opinion. That two WCC/MC bullets could not have done this. But to reject his equally professional opinion that three WCC/MC bullets could. You want to cherry pick which of his conclusions are correct and which are to be rejected.
Like any CTer, you need multiple shooters, or if forced to go with one shooter, it has to be anyone but Oswald, using his Carcano rifle. Hence, the cherry picking of which of Dr. Dolce’s opinions is correct.
What is my opinion of the 1964 Edgewood tests? That they were insufficient to conclude that the two bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that the three bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that both WCC/MC theories are incorrect and that some other theory must be true.
They fired a WCC/MC bullet directly into the wrist of a human cadaver. This is an invalid test. Nothing was done to slow the bullet with soft tissue, or the equivalent, like ballistic gel, to simulate Kennedy’s Neck and Connally’s torso, to see if the bullet could do something like the same amount of damage to Connally’s wrist, while the bullet remained only moderately distorted. Of course, firing directly into the wrist, without slowing it down first, resulted in much greater damage than the damage done to Connally’s wrist, and the bullet receiving much more damage to it than CE 399.
Since 1964, better ballistic tests have been run to show that a WCC/MC bullet could do the damage it did and still emerge being only moderately distorted.
To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)
Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.
Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.
It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
- “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman (1964)
I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.
This is another example of the fact that you post the same falsehoods over and over again. You post your falsehoods, then someone refutes them, then you fall silent, but then you post them
In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims.
No, they have not. I hope you're not talking about Lattimer's test or the Haags' test. If you are, neither of those tests duplicated the single-bullet theory and CE 399's virtually pristine end state. Lattimer's test has already been destroyed many times. The Haags came on the scene a few years ago. When it comes to the JFK case, they are quacks who have clearly failed to do their homework. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the Haags' research:
It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
- “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman (1964)
I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.
The Nova JFK COld Case video can be seen below:I believe the Discovery Channel special was "Inside the Target Car"? But they only simulated the/a head shot not the back shot. Unless you're thinking of another one? I too vaguely recall another special in addition to the NOVA show duplicating something you mentioned with #399. Either both of us are losing it or neither one of us is. Let's agree to go with the latter explanation.
https://aguilarforensics.weebly.com/firearms--tool-marks/nova-jfk-cold-case-full-video
At 34:39, Luke Haag shows how a bullet can be squeezed to resemble CE-399.
At 35:20, Luke Haag states that there is no reason not to conclude that the SBT as proposed by Specter was incorrect.
So Luke Haag agrees with Larry Sturdivan.
So, I make it at 2 to 0.
Can anyone come up with a real ballistic expert who disagrees? After almost 60 years, not one?
* * * * *
And I recall a Discovery Channel, from about 15 years ago, that had ballistic gel models of JFK and Connally, with embedded ribs and an array of wrist bones, that produced a bullet that was not greatly dissimilar to CE-399. Bent in two places (not one like CE-399) because it went through two "ribs", not one. But reasonably close.
I don't recall if this experiment was conducted by ballistic experts but it looked pretty reasonable to me. So I don't think one can say that no one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet at 2,000 fps and ended up with anything resembling CE-399.
I believe the Discovery Channel special was "Inside the Target Car"? But they only simulated the/a head shot not the back shot. Unless you're thinking of another one? I too vaguely recall another special in addition to the NOVA show duplicating something you mentioned with #399. Either both of us are losing it or neither one of us is. Let's agree to go with the latter explanation.
That "Target Car" can be viewed here: https://archive.org/details/JFKInsideTheTargetCar
(http://tnesystems.com/disc_jfk3.jpg) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=17ek8ENh-VHGpBNaK77KvwIeiuoh_7U9-) |
The Nova JFK COld Case video can be seen below:What is required is a ballistics expert who understands the forces applied to a bullet in contacting different target materials at different speeds and different orientations and who has a thorough understanding of physics and strength of materials and can relate that to the actual physical damage that occurred. Sturdivan appears to qualify as such an expert but not the Haags. The only expert who has provided any of that kind of analysis is Sturdivan and I see a number of inconsistencies with his analysis.
https://aguilarforensics.weebly.com/firearms--tool-marks/nova-jfk-cold-case-full-video
At 34:39, Luke Haag shows how a bullet can be squeezed to resemble CE-399.
At 35:20, Luke Haag states that there is no reason not to conclude that the SBT as proposed by Specter was incorrect.
So Luke Haag agrees with Larry Sturdivan.
And I recall a Discovery Channel, from about 15 years ago, that had ballistic gel models of JFK and Connally, with embedded ribs and an array of wrist bones, that produced a bullet that was not greatly dissimilar to CE-399. Bent in two places (not one like CE-399) because it went through two "ribs", not one. But reasonably close.But did not fracture a radius bone, if I recall correctly.
I don't recall if this experiment was conducted by ballistic experts but it looked pretty reasonable to me. So I don't think one can say that no one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet at 2,000 fps and ended up with anything resembling CE-399.I can. No one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet from a Carcano, doing the damage done to the rib and radius of JBC, and having the characteristics remotely similar to those on JBC's wounds and clothing and looking anything like CE399.
I believe the Discovery Channel special was "Inside the Target Car"? But they only simulated the/a head shot not the back shot. Unless you're thinking of another one? I too vaguely recall another special in addition to the NOVA show duplicating something you mentioned with #399. Either both of us are losing it or neither one of us is. Let's agree to go with the latter explanation.
That "Target Car" can be viewed here: https://archive.org/details/JFKInsideTheTargetCar
What is required is a ballistics expert who understands the forces applied to a bullet in contacting different target materials at different speeds and different orientations and who has a thorough understanding of physics and strength of materials and can relate that to the actual physical damage that occurred. Sturdivan appears to qualify as such an expert but not the Haags. The only expert who has provided any of that kind of analysis is Sturdivan and I see a number of inconsistencies with his analysis.
It is not difficult to accept that CE399 is consistent with having passed through JFK's neck. The question is whether:
- it entered JBC to the right of his right scapula and struck the fifth rib creating a tunneling wound
- then pulverized the last 10 cm of that rib,
- then exited just under his right nipple,
- then passed through his jacket sleeve and french cuff causing a longish jagged tear in the cuff in only one location about 1 inch above the end of the cuff,
- then struck the distal fourth of the radius causing an oblique wound wound approximately two cm in length with considerable contusions at the margins,
- created a comminuted fracture of the radius with at least 3 bone pieces being broken off the radius (2 x 1 cm + 1 x 3mm)
- then passed through the forearm leaving several small lead flakes in the wound
- then exited on the volar or palm side of the wrist leaving a 1 cm slit 2 cm above the crease of the wrist
- entered the left thigh on an oblique angle along the direction of the femur appearance being consistent with having struck by the butt end of an intact missile.
- having exited the thigh leaving a bullet whose only deformation is a lateral compression on on the butt end
Sturdivan does not explain each step in terms of the force that the bullet would experience in each of those impacts in order to create the damage observed. For example, he does not identify the pressure required to fracture the radius as it did and relate that to the speed of the bullet and whether at that speed, the bullet would deform if hit nose-on or sideways etc. He avoids it entirely. Not only did this bullet fracture the radius, which is the hardest bone in the body, causing a large irregular entry hole in the cuff and leaving flecks of lead in the wound, it did this after obliterating 10 cm of rib.
But did not fracture a radius bone, if I recall correctly.
I can. No one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet from a Carcano, doing the damage done to the rib and radius of JBC, and having the characteristics remotely similar to those on JBC's wounds and clothing and looking anything like CE399.
And that is entirely apart from the fact that the evidence from the people who were there who said that JFK and JBC were hit by separate bullets.
This is simply not true. In his book "The JFK Myths", Larry Sturdivan discusses the speed the bullet had when it:A bit of revision from his HSCA testimony (1 HSCA 396):
First struck JFK's neck.
Exited JFK's neck.
First struck Connally's back.
First struck Connally's rib, the first direct strike on bone.
First struck Connally's wrist bone.
First struck Connally's thigh.
He estimates the speed of the bullet, when it struck Connally's rib, was 1,400 fps. And it was travelling sideways, at that point.
He states that when travelling point first, the bullet won't start to deform once it drops below 1,700 fps. But when travelling sideways, if won't start to deform once it drops below 1,400 fps. So, when the bullet first struck Connally's rib, it was just going fast enough to start to deform. Hence the side of the bullet being squeezed and lead being pushed out of it's base. The speed of the bullet quickly dropped below 1,400 fps and did not deform any further, even after striking the much stronger wrist bone.
Larry Sturdivan does not discuss the pressures involved, only the speed of the bullet needed to deform. He discusses this pretty thorughly.And that is the problem. We can determine the strength of the bullet and bone in terms of yield pressure (force per unit area at which the molecular bonds within the material break). The force is the time rate of change of momentum of the material the bullet is striking. That can only be determined by experiment. He does not refer to any experimental data.
But what witness could possibly view two different people at the same time? One's concentration would, at best, be only one either Kennedy or Connally. They can't watch one with the left eye and the other with the right. And the only witness who had an opinion on which one they saw get wounded first, Mrs. Connally, was not looking at either man at z-222. Who are the other witnesses who you are referring to?A witness does not have to view two people at the same time. At least 20 people said that JFK reacted to the first bullet and at least 40 said that there was a long pause between 1 and 2 and a much shorter space between 2 and 3 (https://spmlaw.ca/isl/uploads/2021/04/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). That absolutely excludes a second shot SBT, which seems to be the current view. When you combine that with the Connallys being adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that pretty much excludes the SBT.
A bit of revision from his HSCA testimony (1 HSCA 396):
Mr. MATHEWS. So at what velocity will a bullet begin to deform?
Mr. STURDIVAN. OK, the bullet would begin to deform, if it strikes say, soft tissue, at something-remember, the density of soft tissue is around one, the density of water, and it will begin to deform at something in excess of 2,000 feet per second. In other words, at the muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano. If it strikes bone, which is twice as dense, then it would begin to deform nose on at approximately 1,400 feet per second. If the bullet turns sideways, which is a weaker orientation, it will deform down to around 1,000 feet feet per second.
And that is the problem. We can determine the strength of the bullet and bone in terms of yield pressure (force per unit area at which the molecular bonds within the material break). The force is the time rate of change of momentum of the material the bullet is striking. That can only be determined by experiment. He does not refer to any experimental data.
Try firing a MC bullet so that it hits a rib bone sideways at 1400 feet/sec. I think you will find, as Sturdivan originally said, it will be deforming significantly.
A witness does not have to view two people at the same time. At least 20 people said that JFK reacted to the first bullet and at least 40 said that there was a long pause between 1 and 2 and a much shorter space between 2 and 3 (https://spmlaw.ca/isl/uploads/2021/04/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). That absolutely excludes a second shot SBT, which seems to be the current view. When you combine that with the Connallys being adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that pretty much excludes the SBT.
But scientists commonly change their estimates over time. Cranks come up with a number and stick with it no matter what. Scientists has given wildly different estimates on the age of the Earth, before eventually settling on 4.567 billion years during the last generation. While many 'Scientific Creationist' have consistently given the true age as 6,000 years, and do so to this day. Changing one's estimates on measured data is not the sign of a poor scientist. Not changing one's estimate could be a sign that one is dealing with a crank.Did they? If so, where is the data? Sturdivan does not even acknowledge the change, let alone provide an explanation for it.
Early experiments indicated to Mr. Sturdivan deformation velocities of 1,400 to 1,000 fps, later experiments with better film and instruments refined this to 1,700 to 1,400 fps. Nothing is more common in science than getting better data over time.
Modern slow motion film can accurately measure the speed of a bullet. Why don't CTers demonstrate what happens when a bullet strikes bone at 1,400 fps? Instead of providing definitive film or the work of ballistic experts who do this sort of work, they only use words to describe how CE399 could not have come out with so little deformation.It should not be done by anyone who has already formed a firm conclusion about what the result should be.
The videos of pro CT, anti CE 399 experiments are, well, non existent. The CTers don't even go through the motions of conducting scientific experiments.We don't need pro CT, anti CE399 experiments. We need objective testing. Besides, based on the evidence one can easily accept the WC conclusion but conclude that all three bullets struck JFK and/or JBC.
At least 20 people said that JFK reacted first? Could this have something to do with most people being focused on the Kennedy's?If they were so focused on the Kennedys, which seems reasonable, why would not a single witness observe that JFK did not react to the first shot and continued to smile and wave for several seconds after the phantom missed first shot?
Nellie Connally was adamant that John Connally was hit after JFK. John Connally was adamant that his wife could not be mistaken. If she saw it that way, that's the way it happened. Of course, the Zapruder film shows both Kennedy and Connally appearing to react at the same time as they emerged from behind the sign. And absolutely shows Nellie Connally looking at neither man at this time. Oh, yes, this is the perfect witness.She also said that she did not look back at JFK after the second shot and said that she immediately reached out and pulled him toward her. She is looking back at JFK prior to z270.
Did they? If so, where is the data? Sturdivan does not even acknowledge the change, let alone provide an explanation for it.
It should not be done by anyone who has already formed a firm conclusion about what the result should be.
Besides, is not simply a matter of having a bullet strike a bone. This bone was a living bone embedded in a human body. Since the bullet did not shatter the fifth rib at the point where it struck, it must have struck obliquely. Yet it left this 3/8" x 3/8" hole in the back of the shirt:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_back_shirt_hole.JPG)
It pushed the entire fifth rib inward (causing a fracture where it joins the spine). It then passed through the rib driving bone shards into the lower right lung before exiting below the right nipple. It then passed through the shirt and jacket, right jacket sleeve and french cuff leaving this jagged long hole:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)
We don't need pro CT, anti CE399 experiments. We need objective testing. Besides, based on the evidence one can easily accept the WC conclusion but conclude that all three bullets struck JFK and/or JBC.If they were so focused on the Kennedys, which seems reasonable, why would not a single witness observe that JFK did not react to the first shot and continued to smile and wave for several seconds after the phantom missed first shot?
She also said that she did not look back at JFK after the second shot and said that she immediately reached out and pulled him toward her. She is looking back at JFK prior to z270.
Just because you believe "both appear to start to react starting at z-226" doesn't mean that's when Mrs. Connally saw each of them them reacting.The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding. Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding. Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding. Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.
Everybody interprets the Z film as showing what it is they already believe. It’s a giant Rorschach test.
It's no use for science to analyze data. It's no use for use to look at the Zapruder film. The whole universe is just a Rorschach test. The Earth may appear to be spherical, or maybe that's just our bias kicking in. We can't learn anything from nature because we are only going to find what we expect to find.
And see Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder move forward. And his "soon to be hit" coat move. And his "soon to be hit" right wrist shoot upwards.According to the evidence (Gayle Newman and the Connallys in particular) JBC's shoulders did move like that before he was hit. He moved them in response to hearing the first shot, but not thinking he had been hit by it. So what you see in the zfilm fits with JBC and JFK reacting to the first shot.
According to the evidence (Gayle Newman and the Connallys in particular) JBC's shoulders did move like that before he was hit. He moved them in response to hearing the first shot, but not thinking he had been hit by it. So what you see in the zfilm fits with JBC and JFK reacting to the first shot.
What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?
Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.
Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.
How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.
A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.
Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?
How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.
A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.
I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.
Don't see any coincidences?All of this is consistent with what JBC said he did in reaction to the first shot. He said he turned around in an attempt to see JFK. Not only is his turn from z228 to z270 consistent with what he said he did, there is no other time where he makes any attempt at all to see JFK.
How about Connally's initial reactions being related to his wounds?
* The forward movement of Connally's right shoulder, both the location and direction of the bullet corresponding to the location and direction of Connally's movement.
* The movement of the right side of Connally's coat, again, near the location of the bullet exiting Connally's chest.
* The movement of Connally's right wrist, again, near the location of the bullet striking the wrist.
* There is also the jerking up of JFK's elbows right at the time, although, yes, this could be the result of JFK being wounded, while Connally was reacting to hearing this same shot. Although it would be strange that Connally movements correspond to Connally's wounds that would occur about three seconds later, movement of his shoulder, coat and wrist.
* And the coincidence of the lining up of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wound and Connally's back wound. LNers were fantastically lucky that this movement of Connally occurred in the z220's, when these wound locations line up so well with the SBT. It would have been far better for CTers if these movements started after z-240, when these locations were not lined up.But the JFK neck wound trajectory and the right armpit of JBC never align with the SN, so I think it is a stretch to call that a coincidence. The path through JFK was right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees to the car direction at z222. Over the distance between JFK and JBC (at least 24") the bullet would have traveled 24 (tan 9)=3.8 inches farther left. If JFK's neck at z222 (assuming he was leaning over the right side of the car and miraculously in the ensuing 2 frames moved about 3 inches farther left) was 8 inches inside the car, JBC's right armpit would have to be 12 inches inside the car. Do you really think JBC was that far inside the car?
* And the coincidence of the Zapruder camera jiggle at z-227, corresponding with a shot at z-222.Again, movement of both men in response to the first shot is not a coincidence. They are not independent events. It is what the evidence said occurred. But the evidence also says that JBC was not hit in the back by it.
These may all be coincidences. But if so they are real coincidences that support the SBT. If there were plotters behind this assassination, they were very lucky to have so many things fall their way. Not at least seeing some coincidences shows how strong your bias is.
All of this is consistent with what JBC said he did in reaction to the first shot. He said he turned around in an attempt to see JFK. Not only is his turn from z228 to z270 consistent with what he said he did, there is no other time where he makes any attempt at all to see JFK.
But the JFK neck wound trajectory and the right armpit of JBC never align with the SN, so I think it is a stretch to call that a coincidence. The path through JFK was right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees to the car direction at z222. Over the distance between JFK and JBC (at least 24") the bullet would have traveled 24 (tan 9)=3.8 inches farther left. If JFK's neck at z222 (assuming he was leaning over the right side of the car and miraculously in the ensuing 2 frames moved about 3 inches farther left) was 8 inches inside the car, JBC's right armpit would have to be 12 inches inside the car. Do you really think JBC was that far inside the car?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/04/8STJSsPW_o.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/91/1d/uwiEZsww_o.jpg) |
Mason's trying (it's pathetic, really) to move Connally's torso wounding down from the Z220s to Z272, where he thinks the Connally-falling-towards-Nellie movement (that began in the Z240s) is a "sailing forward" movement by Connally caused by the bullet's impact at Z272.Yeah, my "bats__t crazy" theory, as you have called it, is that the evidence means something. You seem to think that it is wrong to accept the evidence for what it says.
Oh yeah, his Z270s bullet just missed the President's head, causing his hair to flutter. Also, the left visor, that's been flapping from wind-flow over it all along Elm, moves in connection with his Z270s shot.
One only needs to see one of Mason's SketchUp SquarePants graphics to see he doesn't understand perspective and spatial alignment. His Pet Theory was quite clever at one time but it never panned out.It never panned out for you because you refuse to accept the evidence that the last two shots were closer together, or that the first shot struck JFK in the neck, or that Hickey saw what he said he saw, or that Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot as he said he did, etc. You think that all the dozens of witnesses who said that the last two shots were in rapid succession were wrong. I don't.
Yeah, my "bats__t crazy" theory, as you have called it, is that the evidence means something. You seem to think that it is wrong to accept the evidence for what it says.
I am not the first person to think that the shots may actually have been 1........2....3 with the last two in rapid succession. It seems the FBI thought this for several months after the assassination just based on the evidence, as this Warren Commission model (https://www.mediafaxfoto.ro/Preview.aspx?Id=6130052) demonstrates:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/wc_model_of_shots.JPG)
The three strings show the shot paths. It is derived from the evidence and indicates where the president's car was located when each of the shots occurred. I reached the same conclusion long ago just following the evidence and only discovered this model recently (it appears to have been posted in October 2013).
Of course, the model was made for the WC before the "experts" and the Connallys themselves started thinking they could see things in the zfilm and before the FBI's "reconstruction" in May 1964.
It never panned out for you because you refuse to accept the evidence that the last two shots were closer together,
or that the first shot struck JFK in the neck, or that Hickey saw what he said he saw,
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg) |
or that Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot as he said he did, etc.
You think that all the dozens of witnesses who said that the last two shots were in rapid succession were wrong. I don't.
It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/c0/a6/QHDze5Mo_o.jpg)
You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.
The model does not represent the Warren Commission's final word on the shot sequence, other than options they might have considered.Obviously, it does not represent their final word. They endorsed the SBT after all. But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs. (Not sure about McCloy).
See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o) ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=6345;topic=181.120;last_msg=12146) for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence". He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots. That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225). Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.”
Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".I don't interpret. I read. He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying. I don't accept that he was lying.
Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay. He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.
Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from? Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?
Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.
Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons.Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF):
As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.
Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from? Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?
Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF):
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Loftus_table.JPG)
Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27
In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them. How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts? (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).
This KLIF bulletin from Dallas: Three shots reportedly were fired at the motorcade of President Kennedy today near the downtown section. KLIF News is checking out the report. We will have further reports. Stay tuned.
Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from? Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?
Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF):
The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.But there is a big difference between a human's ability to hear and count the number of shots and its ability to determine the direction of the source. It is not hard to hear three shots and recall the number of shots correctly, particularly if there was a pattern, such as 1, a space and then 2 together. Direction is an entirely different matter and our brains are easily fooled or confused by nearby surfaces that reflect sound.
Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:Right. The Secret Service, the Connallys, Mary Woodward, all the people waiting to give statements in the Sheriff's office were listening to KLIF. Even that fanciful possibility does not explain why they would report a particular pattern to the shots though, does it?
It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.
If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".Very few witnesses said that the space between the last two shots was as short as the time between the supersonic compression wave (crack) and the muzzle blast. The ability to hear the "crack" depends on how close one is to the bullet path. For a person located close to the bullet path at a distance of 100 m from the muzzle, the bullet (610 m/s - travel time 163 ms) arrives 130 ms before the muzzle blast (343 m/s - travel time 291 ms.). It is difficult to understand how anyone would confuse the two sounds that close as two rifle shots. Many said there was a distinct space between the last two.
Not a spacing of: "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like: "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"
exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.
If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".But you can't simply 'discard' a witness recollection because you have a hunch they might be wrong. The suggestion that they might have confused a shot sound with a supersonic crack that one can only hear if one is close to the bullet path is not consistent with any of the evidence that I have found except, perhaps, Roy Kellerman. Even Hickey, who was close to the bullet path, described two distinct shots having two different effects.
It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
Robert H. Jackson (2 H 159):
- "Then we realized or we thought that it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. ... I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure. "
Linda Willis (7 H 498):
- "Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went. "
Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell(7 H 478)
- "I heard the shot. Mrs. Cabell said, “Oh a gun” or “a shot”, and I was about to deny and say “Oh it must have been a firecracker” when the second and the third shots rang out. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession. There was no mistaking in my mind after that, that they were shots from a high-powered rifle".
Lady Bird Johnson (5 H 564):
- "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."
Luke Mooney (3 H 282):
- "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot."
Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.
Obviously, it does not represent their final word. They endorsed the SBT after all. But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs. (Not sure about McCloy).
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wgl6VjE_NbhoqoI5WUAwM-KPny9FWGh2) ... posted stuff like this | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1F2uSDei7EWk4PP_srcpJQ1Ajpu_ocVh4) ... measured like this |
Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence".
He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots. That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225).
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rnPYtv1XKkICgLqDcp2eE60UNbcVM-WQ) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/b7/03/bJsinoZa_o.gif) Given Moore's angle to the limousine and the "Queen Mary" intervening, the only way I can see Moore thinking Kennedy "slumped" was in the Z170s. The car is out of sight to Moore by the Z220s "slump". |
Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.”
I don't interpret. I read. He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying. I don't accept that he was lying.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg) |
The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay. He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.
Tom Dillard was sitting a few feet in front of Jackson. Reitzes writes:Dillard is one of 10 witnesses who gave statements that were available to the WC indicating that the shots were about equally spaced. Keep in mind that immediately after the shots he was trying to take a photo of the window from which Bob Jackson said he saw a rifle being withdrawn.
"Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News, said, "the three [shots
were] approximately equally spaced." (6H163-64) In 1986
Dillard told Richard Trask, "As distinct as I know I'm talking
to you, I'm as convinced there were three clear shots. [snip]
I thought they were fairly evenly spaced." (Trask, pp. 440-41)
(My abridgement)
Linda can't see the President's right hand nor if he grabbed his throat. At least in the Z150s, she can see the President. But that's over two seconds before your first shot.Ok. Let's discount Linda because you think the 14 year old girl was lying....
Right. Mr. Cabell had an odd sense of time (15 seconds total):You conveniently omitted the question he was asked, which was:
"Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately
10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with
not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
Mr. HUBERT - Two to one ratio?
Mr. CABELL - Approximately that. And again I say that, as you
mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn't tell you the
exact seconds because they were not counted."
And he said he wasn't actually counting off the seconds between either of the spans.
I don't quite see how that describes the spanning between the three shots. Could have been three evenly-spaced shots.Ok. I'll break the sentence: ""Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession." down for you: "Then a moment" refers to a pause after the first shot. "and then two more shots" refers to two shots occurring after the "moment". "in rapid succession." refers to the spacing between the last two shots indicating that they occurred without the pause that occurred for a moment after the first shot and before the next.
So you don't know if the string actually represents a specific sequence of shots.So you don't know how to recognize sarcasm.
Here's how the use of Sneed affects Dave's tally:It is not just Sneed. Reitzes uses statements in several other much later sources such as O'Donnell's book (1972), Zeliger (1992), CNN (2003), Trost/Bennett (2003), Turner (2001), Biffle (2000), Weisberg (1976), Savage (1993), Mark Lane (1968), Thompson (1967) and Trask (1994).You haven't got much to complain about.
- Shots One-and-Two Closer Together ... 2
- Shots Evenly-Spaced ... 8*
- Shots Two-and-Three Closer Together ... 5
Unlike what he said to Sneed, Moore's 1964 statement says nothing about the shot-spacing. You just think you can make it fit using your bias of shot-spacing.I don't count TE Moore as a 1......2...3 witness. He just mentioned hearing the last two after hearing the first. I just pointed out that he said that the first shot occurred much later (by the time JFK reached the Thornton sign), which means the first shot did not miss.
Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".So it is just an interesting coincidence that only JFK's hair on the right side flies up about 2 seconds before the head shot, just as Hickey described but, you say, did not see. Just a lucky guess?
Yet the Zapruder film--when it begins to reveal Greer's head clearly in the late-Z270s--shows Greer already faced fully backward. By the Z280--when you claim Greer first turned his head sharply backward in reaction to your Z272 shot--Greer is not initiating a backward head turn, but instead is coming out of a backward head turn.He is still turning rearward after z283 and does not come out of the rearward head turn until z291. Here it is in slow motion:
It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.
So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/c0/a6/QHDze5Mo_o.jpg)
You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.
Actually, the full set of photos that is available in the National Archives contains captions. The captions explain that the cars represent the locations of the President's car when shots one, two and three were fired. The strings show the trajectories from the SN at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0124.jpg) (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460632)
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0122.jpg) (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460632)
Since they have the head shot at either Z290 or the Z340s, you have to wonder if they had a surveyor or other expert place the strings. Or was it some kind of good-faith best-estimate thing. The Z-frames in the Hearings start at Z171, meaning the Commission apparently didn't think the first shot occurred prior to that.
Did you notice the two white cars in the foreground are even further away from the Depository than they are in photos of the model from the Museum? I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on. Also risky to base a theory on eyewitness reconstruction.
I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on.Three points:
I agree
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_from_SN.JPG)
Jerry:
I am not sure how or why you think this:
is the same seating position as this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1gf46u9lf_qha52FGD2oNvb4HUi8AyBZu) The Zapruder frame corresponding to the Croft Photo. | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZzOxJVXfcigIKhKEHdTcmn96XqNnSSIV) Z193, the clearest frame in the Z190s. |
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=15NCfsX8JBv-oVUML4v2ZQ5k8fX_itxlc) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1A49RRn4EA4Y1ia6HHSBfJ7IAxPDOa3ZT) |
You are avoiding answering the question. You need to make your positions in your 3D model as shown here:
There's no major change in where Connally is seated between Z161 and Z193. That's about two seconds.
You are avoiding answering the question. You need to make your positions in your 3D model as shown here:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_from_SN.JPG)
when viewed from Zapruder's position (without making any change whatsoever to the model) look like this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o0LuEMpYSgKD94qdJ8IPlptdsBsD3LEa) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1JvG8Y39MlQMOty_TKQGpbGSX2SfDqkkr) |
If you find the resolution too difficult to work with, then compare your positions to the positions they were in on Houston Street:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Limo_Houston.jpg)
You ought to restore that cropped image of my model to its full context ...Jerry, you are saying that the men in this position, with JBC turned to the right so that his shoulders are square to Zapruder:
The inset scenes of the model are from the same SketchUp 3D model. One limousine. One Plaza. One set of human figures. It's for Z195. It's saved in it's own unique file. Nothing changed between camera-scenes.
No changes made in the figure models that appear in the inset pictures, if that's what you're implying. You really think I'm that dishonest?
Jerry, you are saying that the men in this position, with JBC turned to the right so that his shoulders are square to Zapruder:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_195_3D.JPG) or
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)
are in the same position as this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JOz195_side.JPG)
in which JBC is facing forward. In z195 (I am using a clearer view in z193) he was turned to the right. Earlier (z153) he was turned forward:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z153.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/04/8STJSsPW_o.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/91/1d/uwiEZsww_o.jpg) |
I see now. With regard to the shoulders of Connally, it appears this is how I showed Connally's torso (neutral) in Croft and repeated it in the Z195 model. I don't see it being a big deal. I will probably rotate the shoulders similar to Myers' version for Z193 and allow for a part of the shoulder ball to project back over the seatback, as Myers has done.I can't tell if you have JBC turned enough in your recreation of frame z195 (the view from Zapruder's position) because the resolution is not sufficient. But it looks very similar to his position in z193.
Your amount of rotation, shown (left-inset) in the graphic following, is ridiculous.In my model the shoulders are over-rotated in order to get the lower back turned. But the bullet from the SN through JFK's midline passes just over the back of the jump seat which is well below the shoulder level.
Just giving this thread a bump to reinforce the point that lone-gunman theorists have no even halfway credible/believable explanation for the two bullet fragments in the very back of JFK's skull. Their own leading wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the ammo that Oswald allegedly used would not and could not have deposited bullet fragments in or near the rear outer table of the skull, especially given the fact that the nose and tail of the supposed lone-gunman head-shot bullet were found in the limousine, which means that any fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section.Everything that u have ever said about anything has been complete krapp.
I devote an entire chapter to this issue in my book A Comforting Lie.
I also address it in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view)).
Everything that u have ever said about anything has been complete krapp.
The lead fragments in xray in jfk's galea were from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet offa the guy rod of the overhead signals at Z105.
The 2 brass fragments of the jacket were from Oswald's shot-1.
My comments on threads are 100% correct.
Your comments are 100% wrong.
The fragments in galea do not & can not sink the LNer theory.
The LNer theory is sunk by other facts/evidence, but it aint sunk by the galea fragments.
SHHEEEESHHHHHHHHHHH.
Only one of the back-of-head fragments was in the galea (the McDonnel fragment).My calculation of Oswald's angles based on above is .....
I believe I've explained to you before the various problems with your guy-rod-deflection theory, such as the fact (1) that the angle of fire would have been virtually straight down, (2) that no gunman would have fired when an obstruction was near his target in his field of view, and (3) that JFK shows no signs of reaction until long after your posited guy-rod-deflection shot.
I do agree with you that the galea fragment could only have come from a ricochet fragment, but that fragment could not have come from a bullet fired at Z105. The lone-gunman theory has no bullet that could have produced such a ricochet fragment.
The Hickey-shot theory is nearly as problematic as the lone-gunman theory. No one who was in Hickey's car, including Powers and O'Donnell, heard Hickey fire a single shot. Have you ever heard an AR-15 fired? I have. The other occupants in the car would have heard Hickey fire a shot, if he had fired one. Plus, Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting.
My calculation of Oswald's angles based on above is .....
Shot-1 at Z113 is -34.8 deg. If at Holland's Z106 it is still -34.8 deg koz either way it is at the signals.
Shot-2 at Z218 is -21.0 deg.
Shot-3 at Z312 is -16.6 deg (but there was no Oswald shot-3).
So, how is 34.8 deg "straight down"?
34.8 deg is only 13.8 deg more than shot-2's 21.0 deg!
Kellerman heard jfk say my god i am hit at say pseudo Z120.
And Towner footage shows jfk with his right hand high up near his head (ie possibly reacting to getting hit in the galea) at about Z113. Alltho i suppose that jfk sometimes held his right hand hi up when waving.
Re the galea fragment, i thort that the xray showed a number of fragments in galea. But i have not spent time trying to understand the xrays. I simply quote others. Certainly u know more than me re xray stuff.
Are u referring to the 6.5 mm circular fragment? Its strange that this is the same dia as a Carcano slug. I believe that it is possible to get a Carcano bullet that has a brass end on the tail of the slug (in addition to having a brass jacket), in which case if that brass-end tears off (ie due to ricochet) then it could give that kind of fragment.
I did see a target board that showed how a Carcano ricochet off pipe gave 3 angles. Remnant slug took one angle. 2 brass halves of FMJ took another angle. And lead splatter took another angle.
All of which confirms a ricochet off the signal arm or guy-rod.
All of which confirms CE567 & CE569 (2 brass halves)(FMJ is made in 2 halves fused together to receive the lead).
All of which confirms xray splatter in galea.
But i cant find that photo of the target board. I think it is in the NOVA youtube. Would cost me $4 to do a screenprint.
That Hickey fired an autoburst is a certainty. That SS Agents etc in Queen Mary heard it is a certainty. That they lied is a certainty (except that Powers did not lie)(Powers chose his words carefully, he merely said that if Hickey fired then Powers would have heard the shot(s), which is a fact, but the inference that Hickey did not shoot is of course a lie).
Re the sound of an AR15. I wonder whether a 12 gauge shotgun is louder. I have done a bit of duck & rabbit shooting with shotguns.
http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2002-0131-2898.pdf
Anyhow, not only did Hickey shoot a president out of season without a permit (he should have forfeited his AR15) , but he was not wearing earmuffs (he should have been fired from the SS).
Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.
DO THE MATH YOURSELF.
You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).
YOUR COMMENTS MAKE NO SENSE.
As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.
U MIGHT BE CORRECT HERE. I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY FRAGMENTS WERE IN XRAY IN THE GALEA.
I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.
SO, WHEN DO U THINK KELLERMAN HEARD I AM HIT?
YES JFK ACTS NORMAL. HE REALIZES THAT HE IS NOT DEAD, EVEN THO HE HAS BEEN BADLY STUNG ON THE RIGHT TOP OF HIS HEAD. AND HE KEEPS SMILING. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT JACKIE & CONNALLY AINT SMILING.
NO, HIS WAVING MOTION IS NOT AFFECTED AS HE DISAPPEARS BEHIND THE SIGN, AND THEN HE CAN BE SEEN AT ABOUT Z224 WHERE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT (AT Z218).
I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.
I NEVER SAID THAT POWERS LIED. I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT "LIED IN THE WC" BIT.
Look, your theory utterly collapses on several points. For example, as I've noted, anyone can look at the Zapruder film and see that JFK is acting normal from the time he comes into clear view in Z160 until at least 28 frames later. During this time span, he shows no signs of any reaction to anything abnormal or painful. He looks calm and casual. This fact alone destroys your scenario.
HE IS SMILING DESPITE BEING STUNG AT Z105.
It makes complete sense that no gunman would have fired when a metal pole was near his target in his field of view. It makes no sense to believe otherwise. Have you ever fired at a target with a rifle? If you were aiming at, say, a rabbit and as you panned and tracked the rabbit a large tree branch appeared near the rabbit, are you telling me you would fire? Really? I qualified at all three marksmanship levels in the Army and did some hunting. Even a relative novice would have enough common sense not to fire at his target if an intervening object was near his target in his field of view.
YES OSWALD SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE SKINNY LITTLE PUNY SIGNAL ARM COULD BE POSSIBLY IN HIS WAY. BUT HE DIDNT, OR IGNORED THAT.
OR, WORSE, THAT THE BIG LARGE SET OF SIGNALS & BACKBOARD COULD BE POSSIBLY IN HIS WAY.
WHAT WOULD U HAVE DONE IF U WERE OSWALD? WOULD U HAVE FIRED WHILE JFK WAS TURNING INTO ELM?
AT LEAST OSWALD REALIZED THAT THE 2 OR 3 TREES PARTIALLY BLOCKED HIS SHOTS FOR A WHILE.
AND HE GOT A BULLSEYE AT Z218. PROBLY FATAL.
AND DID NOT FIRE HIS LAST (THIRD) BULLET.
So JFK keeps smiling after several pieces of metal have hit him in the back of the head and hit him hard enough to penetrate into the outer table and hard enough to penetrate into the galea?! Seriously?! This is absurd. Ludicrous. He would have known immediately that something deadly serious was happening and would not have kept smiling and waving. This is where your theory abjectly collapses and implodes. It's downright bizarre to think that JFK would have kept smiling and waving after having several pieces of hot metal hit him in the back of the head hard enough to embed themselves in the outer table and the galea. Come on. Get serious.I thort that the bits of lead in the galea were very small. JFK must have thort after a few seconds & after wiping his head that it had been a firework.
You're still buying the Oswald myth? Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor during the shooting. He was downstairs on the first and second floor. Two people--Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles-- were on the stairs during the time frame when Oswald would have had to dash down those stairs to have any chance of being in the second-floor lunchroom to be seen by Officer Baker through the vestibule door, and without being seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Officer Baker. Neither lady saw Oswald on the stairs.
Crucially, we now know that Victoria Adams' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, told authorities that she saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. This confirms Adams' original statement to the FBI that she left the window on the fourth floor 15-30 seconds after the shooting. There's no way that Adams and Styles could have missed seeing Oswald on the stairs if he had come down the stairs from the sixth floor. Barry Ernest wrote a whole book on this historic evidence titled The Girl on the Stairs.
I repeat that Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting, and no one in the follow-up car heard him fire a shot. Again, when O'Donnell and Powers later spilled the beans about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, there is no conceivable reason they would not have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if he'd done so, since both men were very critical of the Secret Service's performance during the assassination.
I thort that the bits of lead in the galea were very small. JFK must have thort after a few seconds & after wiping his head that it had been a firework.
I have explained the movements of Oswald Adams & Garner. And Hine.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2947.0.html
I find it hard to take you seriously when you float such utter nonsense. The painful sting of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's penetration into the outer table of the skull alone would have alerted JFK that something deadly serious was going on. Even the penetration of the small fragment into the galea would have been palpabale and would have alerted JFK that something dangerously unusual was happening. There is now way he would have been casually smiling and waving after the penetration of those two fragments.I think that u have confused the fragments. No fragments were taken from the galea. The galea had small lead splatter only.
Your explanation is riddled with errors and faulty assumptions. The WC's reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements was a joke that ignored every problematic element of his alleged actions and key elements of Baker and Truly's actions.
Since Garner saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Truly and Baker coming up the stairs, and since Truly was running ahead of Baker on the stairs, WC apologists need to explain how Oswald could have already been in the second-floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand when he encountered Baker (1) without being seen by Adams and Styles on the stairs, (2) without Jack Dougherty hearing him on the fifth-floor stairs, and (3) without Truly seeing him dash across the second-floor landing to enter the lunchroom (and to enter the lunchroom in time to buy a Coke from the soda machine before Baker confronted him). I'll save you some time and trouble: It's impossible.
The Baker-Oswald Encounter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view?usp=sharing)
Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
See section titled "Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting" (pp. 27-30)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing)
I think that u have confused the fragments. No fragments were taken from the galea. The galea had small lead splatter only.
Re the Oswald etc timings, my description is perfect, & works.
I threw in the movements of Hines too, she entered the door to her office a couple of seconds before Oswald approached the lunchroom.
Oswald did not have a coke in his hand, he got the coke after Baker left.
Dougherty might have been somewhere on the 5th floor when Oswald passed throo the 5th floor, but Dougherty was not necessarily near the stairs in a position to see Oswald.
We know that Dougherty was in front of the elevators 4 minutes later when the trapdoor on the roof slammed shut in the wind (Dougherty thort that it was a shot).
You are totally confused--or are deflecting. I did not say that any fragments were removed from the galea, and the galea fragment--the McDonnel fragment--was not just "small lead splatter." You still have not read my first few posts in this thread, have you? What about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the outer table? I notice you ignored it--again. You don't seem to understand, or are simply refusing to acknowledge, the back-of-head fragments that must be explained.I think that the reports said that there were a number of small fragments on the back of JFK's head (xray) outside the skull.
Do you have any idea how painful it would be to have even a "small lead splatter," much less the McDonnel fragment, hit your head hard enough to go through your scalp, through your outer table, and into your galea? Take the thinnest needle you can find and try pushing it into your head hard enough to penetrate through your scalp and outer table and into your galea--I guarantee you that it will hurt, that it will cause a painful sting.
Or, try taking a somewhat wider needle and push it into your head hard enough to go through your scalp and into your outer table. I promise you that it will cause an even more painful jab.
So enough with this nonsense that after JFK had a fragment penetrate into his galea and another fragment penetrate into his outer table, he did not react and even kept on smiling and waving. This is an unserious, absurd idea.
Oswald bought the coke before Baker saw him. Read the articles I cited.
Your explanation of Oswald's movements and timing does not even remotely work. It is loaded with specious, forced assumptions that you are compelled to make in order to try to get Oswald into the second-floor lunchroom without being seen or heard on the stairs and without being seen on the second-floor landing by Truly. Again, read the articles I cited.
I think that the reports said that there were a number of small fragments on the back of JFK's head (xray) outside the skull.
Even if u are correct that one of these was 6.5 by 2.5 then i dont see why this/these had to be very painful.
A blunt bang on the head can be very painful (with much swelling & bruising). But a sharp bang aint necessarily very painful.
And i dont see why these fragments could not have come from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet off the signal arm (guy rod).
The brass FMJ fragments into 2 halves.
The remnant lead slug is usually in one piece.
Except that there is always some lead splatter (& praps some brass splatter).
Michael T. Griffith....... Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.
...........OK, IT (IF IT EXISTED) WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SKULL.
Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.
............ SO, U AGREE WITH ME, THAT IT (IF IT EXISTED) WOULD BE NOTHING LIKE A PAINFUL BLUNT BANG.
............ IT DID NOT HURT MUCH, KOZ WE KNOW THAT JFK DID NOT REACT MUCH. A QUICK STAB OF 1.5 MM OF SCALP WOULD GIVE VERY LITTLE PAIN. PENETRATION OF THE OUTER TABLE OF SKULL PROBLY GIVES VERY LITTLE PAIN. PAIN IN BONES IS PROBLY MORE OF A LONG TERM THING, AN ACHE, TO TELL U THAT ALL IS NOT WELL. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE IGNORED IF THE LARGE FRAGMENT DID NOT EXIST.
............ PUSHING A NEEDLE INTO THE SCALP & OUTER TABLE WOULD BE DIFFERENT TO THE NEEDLE IMPACTING & PENETRATING THE SAY 5MM OF SCALP & BONE IN SAY 0.00003 SEC. TRY IT & SEE HOW MUCH IT HURTS.
In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.
.................. I THINK THIS REFERS TO THE 1 BY 1 FRAGMENT. BUT I THORT THAT THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF FRAGMENTS ON THE TOP BACK RIGHT OF THE HEAD, IN XRAY.
It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.
............... DONAHUE'S RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT SHOT-1 HIT THE TARMAC, & FRAGMENTS OF SLUG HIT JFK & EMBEDDED IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD, & 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. SILLY.
............... HOLLAND'S RICOCHET THEORY WAS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 RICOCHETED & EVENTUALLY CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND. SILLY.
............... MY RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 HIT A GUY ROD, & LEAD SPLATTER HIT JFK IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD (XRAY). IF YOUR 6.5 BY 2.5 FRAGMENT EXISTED THEN FOR SURE U CAN ADD THAT TO THE SPLATTER.
................ AND MY THEORY SAYS THAT THE 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. AND THAT THE REMNANT SLUG MADE A HOLE IN THE FLOOR PAN (PHOTO).
................ JFK DID NO KEEP WAVING & SMILING. HE EXCLAIMED MY GOD I AM HIT (KELLERMAN). AND HE FELT & WIPED HIS HEAD (WITNESSES). AND REALIZING THAT HE WAS STILL BREATHING, & THAT NO-ONE ELSE SEEMED TO BE PANICKING, HE MUST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BEEN A FIREWORK CRACKER. HAD HE DUCKED DOWN THEN ALL MIGHT HAVE ENDED OK. BUT HE WAS DOOMED. PAINFUL YES. BUT LESS PAINFUL THAN U THINK.
................ OSWALD'S SHOT-1 WAS AT 34.8 DEG, NOT STRAIGHT DOWN.
To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.
.................... SHOT-1 OF HICKEY'S AUTO BURST RICOCHETED OFFA THE TARMAC & CURB, & CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND.
This is getting sillier and sillier.There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?
"IF" the fragment existed? HUH? Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.
This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.
Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death. Then, there are three very small fragments, one of which is also inside the image of the 6.5 mm object.
Since the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment are the two largest back-of-head fragments, and since no one disputes their existence, I have focused on them.
Regarding your comment that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's impact "would be nothing like a painful blunt bang," perhaps part of the problem here is your command of English. I've said repeatedly that the impact of that fragment would have caused a very painful, sharp stabbing sensation when it penetrated all the layers of the scalp and then hit the outer table hard enough to embed itself therein, which is why I've said you should test this yourself by getting a needle and seeing what if felt like to have a small metal surface penetrate into your table.
The term "blunt-force trauma" describes "a non-penetrating type of trauma" caused "a dull object or surface." So, I don't know even know why you are raising the issue of a "painful blunt bang" when I've repeatedly described the pain as a sharp stabbing pain caused by the penetration of the fragment through the scalp and into the outer table.
Hickey fired no shot. You have zero evidence that he fired a shot. It's pure speculation. No one in his car said he fired a shot. He denied firing a shot. His ammo was checked and accounted for. When Hickey sued Donahue and his publisher, they opted to settle out of court. Hickey's shot could not have hit the EOP entry site, as Donahue himself documented very capably (which is why Donahue went with the spurious cowlick entry site, but that site was later soundly debunked and is now widely rejected even by lone-gunman theorists ala Sturdivan).
There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?
But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test was carried out in Elm St on 22nov1963.
Hickey fired at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.
The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).
One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.
This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.
I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.
This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.
You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.
There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.
Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.
Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?
Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:
Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.
Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsGBQdZ5/z312-Muchmore.jpg)
HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really??? Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.
Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.
Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???
Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif) Polygon data is from BodyParts3D, CC BY-SA 2.1 jp, ( Link (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25042966) ) |
HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really???The forward head lean is more than 30 degrees relative to the car horizontal*(see below). But Donohue is wrong that the path requires a 60 degree downward angle. Draw an 11 degree angle to the car horizontal at that point, which was the angle from the SN, entering the back of the head and see where it exits. It exits the top front of the head. You don't need to measure angles. Just draw the line:
Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.See above.
Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.See above.
Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???See above.
Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.
The average adult scalp is between 5.5 mm and 5.8 mm deep/thick. I said 5.5 mm to be conservative and to give every benefit of doubt.Thats a good summary.
It is just not reasonable to argue that a fragment that tore through four of the five layers of the scalp and penetrated into the periosteum would not have caused a sharp stabbing pain. It is even more unreasonable to claim that a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp and embedded itself in the outer table would not have caused an even sharper stabbing pain.
Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.
Surely you know that this is a very far-fetched suggestion. There is no record of JFK being anywhere near gunfire in a paved area before the day of the assassination. JFK did not enjoy guns and hunting. His only known hunting activity was reportedly when LBJ took him hunting on his ranch about two weeks after the 1960 election, and nothing unusual was reported as occurring during the outing--and, needless to say, there was no pavement in the woods where they were hunting.
You keep saying "if true" about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Why? Do you think that Dr. Mantik fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Do you think that Dr. Chesser fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Dr. Mantik discovered the fragment only after viewing the 6.5 mm object under high magnification, and he then did OD measurements on it to confirm his visual detection.
Do you think that Dr. Fitzpatrick was somehow mistaken when he said, after spending many hours examining the skull x-rays over a two-day period, that there is a small fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays that is within the 6.5 mm object's area when viewed from the AP angle? Do you think that all the HSCA FPP experts were mistaken when they said they saw a small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays that vertically aligned with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Do you understand that even Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that there's a small bullet fragment in that location on the lateral x-rays but that it cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object?
There's no "if true" about it.
Researchers have long puzzled over Sibert and O'Neill's reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4). They said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is close to the lamda, and the lamda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and sagittal suture at the top of the occiput; it can certainly be described as the juncture of the skull bone in the back of the head.
However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm, and that fragment was nowhere near the back of the head but was very close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays.
Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment was based on the autopsy doctors talking about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lamda.
So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.
The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays.
Someone is arrogant with few scruples. This is like you claiming all LNers believe the SBT occurred at Z224. Most LNers now go with the "cowlick"-level inshoot. Try to get up to speed on these things.
A near-EOP shot would have shattered the lower right skull and half the floor, with little metal, if any, exiting That's inconsistent with the autopsy photos and descriptions, and the gaping head wound location seen in the Zapruder film.. Humes saw the problem in the 1967 "Military Review" and the "Clark Panel" saw it immediately. If Humes had bared the EOP (there's a lot of attachments there to clear away), I believe he would have taken a picture of the skull entry wound in relation to the bared EOP. Instead Humes relied on feeling through the scalp for the EOP and reflecting the scalp without baring the EOP
Humes seems to have measured from the skull mid-line to the skull entry wound ("2.5 cm. laterally"). Problem is there's no mid-line visible on the exterior of the occipital bone, but there is a mid-line right over from the "cowlick"-level entry wound (Clark Panel, HSCA).
LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.
OMG, is there a major JFKA conspiracy theory that you don't believe?
Just how BIG is your conspiracy and have you ever considered how many people were involved in this mass deception?
Why after 60 years has not one of these thousands blabbed, because to spill the beans is human nature after all?
And most importantly your side after all this time are still no closer to a solution than Day one, how much time and how many man years of fruitless research and investigations could have been better spent helping the community and feeding the poor?
JohnM
I think it's helpful to keep in mind that you are in a rather small minority of adults in the Western world who still believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who had no accomplices of any kind. You might wanna keep that in mind.
LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.
A few points in reply:
-- You might want to read your own and best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, regarding why the cowlick entry site is pure bunk.
-- Dr. Finck had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, as he told the ARRB, but those photos never made it into the official record.
-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points.
-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it.
-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.
-- A bullet that entered at the EOP site would not have "shattered the lower right skull and half the floor" if it had been fired from a lower window of the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building.
-- A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and that entered at the debunked cowlick entry site would have entered at a 15-degree downward angle and would have been traveling at a leftward horizontal angle (right to left)--and therefore could not have exited above the right ear. Only someone willing to self-delude themselves could claim otherwise.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1TjpcglbibHHGmr9DZVRLZIFfTnj3RHjF) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1S-vVZ5DytkKdir6Fu7FrlPrclVI9Rxjb) |
-- The HSCA's trajectory expert operated without knowing where the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) placed the alleged path of the bullet and without knowing that the FPP had to assume that JFK's head was tilted forward by about 27 degrees to make the path "work"--and the FPP was using the cowlick entry site. Canning put the forward tilt of JFK's head at just 11 degrees.
Andrew Mason's reply is gibberish. The WC's own diagram of the bullet's alleged path (CE 388) has Kennedy leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, as scholars have been noting for decades. See https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm (http://ttps://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm).
-- One of the HSCA's radiologists noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.
-- The back-of-head fragment within the 6.5 mm object is below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means it could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom. This is one of the cold, hard facts of physics that Donahue zeroed in on as he delved into the forensic evidence regarding the 6.5 mm object.
-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the 6.5 mm object would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.
(65.3 feet above JFK and 265.3 feet direct distance as surveyed and shown in CE884).Would you care to re-check this data for accuracy?
Aye me Hearties ye olde chestnut, unlike some i.e. you, I'm not a sheeple being mindlessly herded along with the flock but have intellectually chosen to utilize deductive reasoning skills to draw the only inescapable conclusion.
Having lived in the real World for more than half a Century, one starts to understand People, who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. The enormous conspiracy that you suggested in your second to last post, which btw is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the mountain of conspiracy you've outlined in your book is no small undertaking and involves many compliant conspirators across a vast number of fields, who need to lie from innocent civilians, to cops walking the beat, to FBI, CIA through to the Goddam newly sworn in President of the United States, manipulate, insert manipulated evidence into microfilms, gaining access to federal departments, inserting manipulated evidence into crime scenes, create masses of altered evidence from corroborating films, then faking these films by some unknown processes, faking photographs, forging documents, modifying X-rays, and all this faked evidence is so perfect that real experts 60 years later still can't detect any signs of manipulation.
And on the other hand a lone nut took a mail order rifle to work and shot the President. JohnM
Aye me Hearties ye olde chestnut, unlike some i.e. you, I'm not a sheeple being mindlessly herded along with the flock but have intellectually chosen to utilize deductive reasoning skills to draw the only inescapable conclusion.Democrats and Republicans in Washington loathe one another, couldn't agree to go to lunch. But he and his fellow conspiracists have multiple generations of them - and multiple generations of Americans from various backgrounds - for decades planning this out, executing it, then covering it all up. And then covering up the coverups. And all remaining silent.
Having lived in the real World for more than half a Century, one starts to understand People, who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. The enormous conspiracy that you suggested in your second to last post, which btw is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the mountain of conspiracy you've outlined in your book is no small undertaking and involves many compliant conspirators across a vast number of fields, who need to lie from innocent civilians, to cops walking the beat, to FBI, CIA through to the Goddam newly sworn in President of the United States, manipulate, insert manipulated evidence into microfilms, gaining access to federal departments, inserting manipulated evidence into crime scenes, create masses of altered evidence from corroborating films, then faking these films by some unknown processes, faking photographs, forging documents, modifying X-rays, and all this faked evidence is so perfect that real experts 60 years later still can't detect any signs of manipulation.
And on the other hand a lone nut took a mail order rifle to work and shot the President.
JohnM
The forward head lean is more than 30 degrees relative to the car horizontal*(see below). But Donohue is wrong that the path requires a 60 degree downward angle. Draw an 11 degree angle to the car horizontal at that point, which was the angle from the SN, entering the back of the head and see where it exits. It exits the top front of the head. You don't need to measure angles. Just draw the line:
Since the head is also turned to the left by about 30 degrees more than a line from the SN to the head, it exits the right side at the top of the head. That could not possibly be done by a shot from where Hickey was with JFK turned and leaning like that.
* The horizontal angle from the SN to JFK's head was arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees (65.3 feet above JFK and 265.3 feet direct distance as surveyed and shown in CE884). Subtracting 3 degrees for the slope of the road, this means the angle to the car horizontal was about 11.25 degrees. The path through JFK's head was from the entry wound located 3" below the top of the head to the exit wound which was 6" farther forward and at the top of the right side of the head, that is an upward angle of arctan(3/6)=26.5 degrees. In other words: the forward tilt of JFK's head relative to the car horizontal has to equal the 11.25 degrees downward slope from the SN relative to the car horizontal plus the angle of the bullet path to the head horizontal (26.5 degrees)=38 degrees. So the forward lean of JFK just has to be about 38 degrees, not 60.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to explain how a bullet that has a trajectory almost tangential to the skull [required by the assumption that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window] could fragment extensively in the superficial brain layers, have major portions of the bullet exit (based on fragments recovered in the limousine), yet a large fragment (which retains a circular profile) deviates down to penetrate the supraorbital ridge but no fragments are distributed along the pathway. (Joseph N. Riley, “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report. . . .
There is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. (Joseph N. Riley, “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)
Humm, well, during all this time you've spent in the "real World" [sic], you apparently have not taken the time to get yourself a decent education so you can avoid making high-school-level writing and grammatical errors.
I won't waste time dissecting your strawman misrepresentation of the case for conspiracy in JFK's death, but I will list a few of the people who have concluded and stated that JFK was killed by a conspiracy/killed by more than one gunman:
-- Robert F. Kennedy, brother of JFK and JFK's Attorney General. (Although RFK publicly endorsed the WC, we now know that privately he told many friends and family members that he believed his brother had been killed by a right-wing conspiracy, and that he planned on reopening the case if he won the White House. Historian David Talbot discusses RFK's numerous private statements on the assassination in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years. We also now know that soon after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent a private message to the Kremlin that they did not believe the Soviets were involved in JFK's death and that JFK was killed by "domestic opponents," a "right-wing conspiracy.")
-- Morris Wolff, a former White House aide to JFK and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy who later served as a legislative assistant to WC member Senator Sherman Cooper. (Wolff revealed in 2022 that Cooper did not believe the SBT, did not believe that Oswald acted alone, and did not believe that Ruby had no serious Mafia connections.)
-- Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin.
-- Dr. Joseph Dolce, an Army wound ballistics expert who played a leading role in the WC's wound ballistics tests. (Dr. Dolce was considered to be one of the Army's top wound ballistics experts at the time.)
-- The late Senator Richard Schweiker, who served on the Church Committee.
-- Former Senator Christopher Dodd, who served on the HSCA when he was a member of the House of Representatives.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, a clinical professor of ophthalmology at the University of California.
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy, a ballistics expert with Failure Analysis, which assisted with the American Bar Association's mock Oswald trials in the 1990s.
-- Dr. Arthur Snyder, formerly a physicist at the University of Indiana and then at Stanford University's Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).
-- Journalist Robert MacNeil, formerly of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS.
-- The late Ambassador William Atwood, former Special Assistant to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations.
-- President Lyndon Johnson. (We now know from the Johnson White House tapes that Johnson rejected the single-bullet theory. We also know from former Johnson aides and associates that Johnson believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.)
-- The late Dr. Milton Helpern, a renowned forensic pathologist and formerly the medical examiner for New York City.
-- The late Dr. John Nichols, a forensic pathologist and formerly a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas.
-- The late Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper who was widely regarded as the greatest sniper of the 20th century.
-- The late Evelyn Lincoln, who was Kennedy's White House secretary.
-- The late Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician.
-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former HSCA deputy chief counsel and a former assistant district attorney in NYC who became chief of the Homicide Bureau and then the chief of the NYC Criminal Courts.
-- G. Robert Blakey, a former HSCA chief counsel and a professor of law at Notre Dame University.
-- Gary Cornwell, a former HSCA deputy chief counsel and a former DOJ prosecutor who served as the chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in Kansas City, where he successfully tried and convicted the chiefs of the Mafia families in both Kansas City and Denver.
-- The late Gaeton Fonzi, a respected investigative journalist whose work was published in major newspapers, including the New York Times, and who served as an investigator for the Church Committee and the HSCA.
-- Ed Lopez, a former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activities in Mexico City and who co-authored the Lopez-Hardway Report (aka the Lopez Report).
-- Dan Hardway, a former HSCA investigator who worked with Ed Lopez to investigate Oswald's time in Mexico City and who co-authored the Lopez-Hardway Report.
-- Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics and an M.D. in radiation oncology. He is a board-certified radiation oncologist. He completed fellowships in physics at the University of Illinois and in biophysics at Stanford University. He was a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Michigan. He has authored scientific papers that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The list could continue for many pages.
Humm, well, during all this time you've spent in the "real World" [sic], you apparently have not taken the time to get yourself a decent education so you can avoid making high-school-level writing and grammatical errors.
I won't waste time dissecting your strawman misrepresentation of the case for conspiracy in JFK's death
Zapruder, about 40 feet away, views and films the assassination. Immediately after he has that film - and three copies - made. He views the original film at the studio. He then gives two copies - copies not the original - to the Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent. Sorrels - "thuh government" doesn't take all four. No, they take - are given - two copies. Zapruder keeps the original and shows it the next day to potential buyers.
Fast forward to the Clay Shaw trial in 1967. At the trial Zapruder shows the film to the jury. It's shown multiple times. It shows the explosion on JFK's head at the top/right not the back. Again, not the back. Zapruder doesn't see this change? The original film supposedly shows the explosion out of the back. Here, the film shows the top/side. It's been changed by the CIA from back to top? Zapruder doesn't see this?
You have be quite a fantasist to think Zapruder saw a blowout in the back of the head on the original but then *doesn't* notice that it has changed to the top/right in the film shown at the trial.
Fantasists indeed.
Your willingness to simply brush aside contrary evidence is remarkable. Let's get a few basic facts straight to cut through all of this smoke, and then let's look at some problems with the cowlick entry site that you have never addressed (probably because you know nothing about them):
Zapruder, about 40 feet away, views and films the assassination. Immediately after he has that film - and three copies - made. He views the original film at the studio. He then gives two copies - copies not the original - to the Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent. Sorrels - "thuh government" doesn't take all four. No, they take - are given - two copies. Zapruder keeps the original and shows it the next day to potential buyers.
Fast forward to the Clay Shaw trial in 1967. At the trial Zapruder shows the film to the jury. It's shown multiple times. It shows the explosion on JFK's head at the top/right not the back. Again, not the back. Zapruder doesn't see this change? The original film supposedly shows the explosion out of the back. Here, the film shows the top/side. It's been changed by the CIA from back to top? Zapruder doesn't see this?
You have be quite a fantasist to think Zapruder saw a blowout in the back of the head on the original but then *doesn't* notice that it has changed to the top/right in the film shown at the trial.
Fantasists indeed.
"No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw))
"There was a large hole, but it was right back there" [indicating the right-rear side of the head]. (url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw[/url])
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)
Would you care to re-check this data for accuracy?I took this from the survey data in CE884:
I took this from the survey data in CE884:
The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft. That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).
At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet. That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).
From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet. So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle. I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much. So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.
Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet. So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..
I took this from the survey data in CE884:Derived from CE884 if it helps:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0464b.gif) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm)
The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft. That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).
At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet. That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).
From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet. So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle. I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much. So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.
Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet. So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..
Derived from CE884 if it helps:
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/SiZZv.png)
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)
Is this supposed to be a response to the facts I've presented to you?No. That was my previous post.
I notice you are still avoiding the HSCA FPP's wound trajectory diagram. Have you even looked at it yet? This was the FPP's attempt to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit and then exited JFK's head in the way they were claiming it did, and they were assuming the entry point was the cowlick entry site.I explained that the wounds to JFK's head do not require a 60 degree forward lean. Only about a 38 degree forward lean.
CE388 shows JFK's head tilted forward at 52 degrees from the Earth horizontal. It shows the bullet trajectory at what I measure to be 16.9 degrees from Earth horizontal or 52-16.9=35.1 degrees to the head horizontal.
Allow me to repeat, again, that when I noted that CE 388 shows JFK's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, you said this was similar to ("kind of like") the position of his head in the Muchmore frame. Anyone who is not emotionally committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can look at CE 388 and see immediately that JFK's forward tilt is far greater than it is in the Muchmore frame or in any pre-Z313 frame. This is too obvious to credibly deny. A child could see this.
No. That was my previous post. I explained that the wounds to JFK's head do not require a 60 degree forward lean. Only about a 38 degree forward lean.CE388 shows JFK's head tilted forward at 52 degrees from the Earth horizontal. It shows the bullet trajectory at what I measure to be 16.9 degrees from Earth horizontal or 52-16.9=35.1 degrees to the head horizontal.
If one tilts JFK back about 14 degrees from the position shown in CE388 and adds the 3 degrees of the car downward slope, it fits the path to the SN of about 11.25 degrees to the car horizontal :
There is, of course, a bit of uncertainty of a few degrees due to uncertainty to the precise location of the wounds and measuring the angles of JFK's forward and leftward lean in the car. The bottom line, however, is that a shot from the SN is easily within the margins of error of these measurements and generally fits the left to right and upward path through the head using the upright-forward facing head as the frame of reference.
I had the angle through the head at around 26.5 degrees because I had the entrance a bit higher in the back and the exit a bit farther to the front.
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)
There isn't a valid trajectory from the SN that enters the back of JFK's head and exits the right side of his forehead at the hairline as shown in the following autopsy photo (cut away by Humes via some post mortem surgery):
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg)
And what happened to the gaping hole at the right occipital region of the back of JFK's head? Too many prominent medical personnel saw it and noted it. This was clearly an exit wound and the entrance wound at JFK's hairline was cut out to move the alleged exit wound to the center of the head as depicted by CE 388, which was pure horsesh*t.
So if this was actually a frontal shot given JFK's head tilt then the shot must have come from the overpass.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)
For those who contend that JFK's head moved forward from this shot, according to James Files, there were 2 near simultaneous shots that struck JFK at the "turkey shoot point" and perhaps more that missed. A designated turkey shoot point disguises many simultaneous shots to sound like a single shot. James used a hand held Fireball that shot a frangible bullet from the knoll, which entered the right side of JFK's head causing a right temple blowout after the bullet exploded. Files' frangible bullet dictated how the head moved according to the force of an uneven explosion.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout2.jpg)
There were likely some token shots taken from the TSBD or the DalTex buildings, possibly using the Mauser, which struck Connelly but not JFK. The kill shots would come from the front. The Magic Bullet also came from the front because there isn't a trajectory from the SN, 17 degrees from hz, entering JFK's back at T1 and out his throat at C7. You can prove it to yourself with 2 lasers.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png)
Line up the laser at C7 in the front and note where the rear laser strikes your back, which is not at T1, since you would need to have your head almost between your legs to make that trajectory viable.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png)
The fact that the small throat wound was disguised to not look like an entrance wound means that's exactly what it was, a shot from the front. It took a downward trajectory from C7 to T1 and definitely struck the T1 vertebrae.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif)
When the Magic Bullet struck the T1 vertebrae it broke up into several pieces and exited the back in fragments. The biggest fragment was pointed out to be a single entrance wound, which the WC tried to move up past T1 into the neck vertebrae because they knew the MB's trajectory from T1 to C7 was not feasible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Here is the MB's trajectory from the front, which fits all the angles.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png)
Mystery solved. :)
The trajectory from the SN where the rifle and shells were found and the witnesses stated the shots came from is the only valid trajectory ever presented. The only mystery in this is why continually present made up theories that are not even remotely possible.
There isn't a valid trajectory from the SN that enters the back of JFK's head and exits the right side of his forehead at the hairline as shown in the following autopsy photo (cut away by Humes via some post mortem surgery):
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg)
And what happened to the gaping hole at the right occipital region of the back of JFK's head? Too many prominent medical personnel saw it and noted it. This was clearly an exit wound and the entrance wound at JFK's hairline was cut out to move the alleged exit wound to the center of the head as depicted by CE 388, which was pure horsesh*t.
So if this was actually a frontal shot given JFK's head tilt then the shot must have come from the overpass.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)
For those who contend that JFK's head moved forward from this shot, according to James Files, there were 2 near simultaneous shots that struck JFK at the "turkey shoot point" and perhaps more that missed. A designated turkey shoot point disguises many simultaneous shots to sound like a single shot. James used a hand held Fireball that shot a frangible bullet from the knoll, which entered the right side of JFK's head causing a right temple blowout after the bullet exploded. Files' frangible bullet dictated how the head moved according to the force of an uneven explosion.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout2.jpg)
There were likely some token shots taken from the TSBD or the DalTex buildings, possibly using the Mauser, which struck Connelly but not JFK. The kill shots would come from the front. The Magic Bullet also came from the front because there isn't a trajectory from the SN, 17 degrees from hz, entering JFK's back at T1 and out his throat at C7. You can prove it to yourself with 2 lasers.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png)
Line up the laser at C7 in the front and note where the rear laser strikes your back, which is not at T1, since you would need to have your head almost between your legs to make that trajectory viable.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png)
(https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/images/org/health/articles/16877-clavicle) | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/A_picture_of_President_Kennedy%27s_head_and_shoulders_taken_at_the_autopsy.jpg) |
The fact that the small throat wound was disguised to not look like an entrance wound means that's exactly what it was, a shot from the front. It took a downward trajectory from C7 to T1 and definitely struck the T1 vertebrae.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif)
When the Magic Bullet struck the T1 vertebrae it broke up into several pieces and exited the back in fragments. The biggest fragment was pointed out to be a single entrance wound, which the WC tried to move up past T1 into the neck vertebrae because they knew the MB's trajectory from T1 to C7 was not feasible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Here is the MB's trajectory from the front, which fits all the angles.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png)
Mystery solved. :)
Show me the geometry of the "only valid trajectory ever presented", if you can. My impossible "made up theories" are based on photogrammetric analyses of the Zapruder film and the geometry of the crime scene. Your opinions appear to come from your LNer gut. Good luck with that.
The trajectory from the SN where the rifle and shells were found and the witnesses stated the shots came from is the only valid trajectory ever presented. The only mystery in this is why continually present made up theories that are not even remotely possible.
And people wonder how there can be a Flat Earth Society in our day. Are you aware that there are two very different SN-to-head trajectories, i.e., the WC's and the HSCA's? Which one do you accept?
The WC experts said the bullet struck JFK's head "slightly above" and 2.5 cm (1 inch) to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). (Finck indicated to the HSCA that "slightly above" was 1 cm, or 4/10ths of an inch.) But the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel said that the bullet struck 10 cm higher (or 3.9 inches higher), and that the autopsy doctors had committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking a wound in the cowlick, clearly above the lambda, for a wound that was 10 cm lower, slightly above the EOP, even though they reflected the scalp and had good reference points for locating the wound (the EOP, the hairline, and the lambda).
Obviously, the entry wound site that you choose will have a huge impact on the trajectory that you try to trace back to the sixth-floor window (SN).
The WC experts said that the EOP entry wound trajected back to the SN. To make the trajectory work, they had to assume that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward (CE 388). However, the HSCA experts produced two conflicting trajectory analyses. The HSCA medical experts found it necessary to assume a forward head tilt of about 27 degrees, but the HSCA trajectory expert, NASA scientist Tom Canning, said that the head was tilted only about 11 degrees forward. Both of the HSCA analyses assumed that the entry wound was the cowlick site.
Which entry site do you accept? If you accept the cowlick site, you need to face the unsolvable problems with the site. But, if you accept the EOP site, you must believe that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, since they categorically rule out the EOP site because they show a virtually undamaged cerebellum and no damage to the rear part of the right occipital lobe. On the other hand, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in/beneath the cowlick site, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.
There is an explanation that resolves all of these and other issues, but it means abandoning the lone-gunman fiction. The explanation is that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, that the cowlick site is not a bullet wound, that two bullets hit the skull, that one of those two bullets hit the right temple (just as was initially reported by White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff), and that the back-of-head fragments are ricochet fragments (just as the Clark Panel privately believed). Once you graduate to this realization, (1) the two very different wound paths in the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage--pose no problem; (2) the high fragment trail poses no problem; (3) the undamaged cerebral cortex in/under the cowlick site poses no problem; and (4) the back-of-head fragments pose no problem.
Flat Earth Society? I did not know they had a society. I like that maybe I will have to join. It pales in comparison to people who believe the Earth is 7000 years old with the Romans interacting with the dinosaurs.
Your only point in this long-winded post is the position of JFK’s head and where did the bullet strike the back of the head? That is it?
The essential facts still are there was a shot having been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD striking JFK in the head. You are having a problem with their interpretations? You think these experts should all have agreed exactly on how they determined JFK’s position and LHO’s position and the effect of the bullet? Really?
Again, if you use the cowlick site, you must face the unsolvable problems with that site, starting with the fact that accepting that site means you must reject the authenticity of the top-of-head autopsy photos because they show intact cerebral cortex at that same location, which is obviously impossible if a bullet entered there.
But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.
I can see the cortex in the top-of-the-head autopsy photos but where is the cowlick-level site? Could you point to the cowlick entry site in that photo?
The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight? :D
LOL! Uh, that's the point! It's not there! Sheesh. In the top-of-head photos, intact cerebral cortex is in/just below the very same location where the back-of-head photo shows the red spot, but the red spot is not there in the top-of-head photos, and instead we see only exposed and intact cerebral cortex, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.
I don't know how much more simply I can explain the problem. I thought the problem was already quite clear. Do you understand now?
This howler is almost as bad as your next one below.
When you blunder this badly, it doesn't help that you throw in bigotry on top of your blunder.
Yes, the autopsy photos show the right cerebrum virtually intact--it's lacerated but appears to be missing only a tiny fraction of its substance. Umm, but this poses no problem for the EOP entry site. I said that the autopsy photos show the cerebellum virtually intact. I said nothing about the right cerebrum, which is a totally different part of the brain (and also looks very different than the cerebellum). Allow me to quote the very sentence from my reply that you quoted and answered with your blundering argument:
But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location. (Emphasis added)
How did you get "right cerebrum" from "cerebellum"? Do you not have access to a basic brain diagram? Again, the cerebellum is a different part of the brain. It is below the cerebrum and looks very different than the cerebrum.
It is amazing that you, who pretends to be a serious student of the JFK medical evidence, could make such an embarrassing blunder about such a basic issue.
Thanks. Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area. You really got some grasp of perspective and sightline analysis.
Well. So now you think the right-rear occiptal lobe (to which I was referring to) is cerebellum. :D
Anybody can see the cerebellum is intact in the drawing I posted.
Read: You'd rather lie than admit you goofed. As I have pointed out several times, even Dr. Joe Riley, a neuroanatomist, has noted that the intact cerebral cortex visible in the top-of-head photos is in the exact same location as the high entry wound identified by the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP.
Surely you're not going to pretend that you don't know that this wound is commonly referred to as the cowlick entry site, are you? Surely you're not going to pretend you don't know that the HSCA FPP referred to the wound as being in the "cowlick" area, are you? Are you really asking people to believe such an obvious juvenile lie?
HUH? What part of my reply could lead you to make such a silly, dishonest claim? Let's read what I wrote again:
But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.
Did you catch the "and" between "cerebellum" and "right-rear occipital lobe"?
How could you misconstrue this as even implying that the right-rear occipital lobe is cerebellum? How?
Clearly, you're just lying because you don't want to admit you severely goofed.
LOL! Yeah, uh-huh. You're acting like a nine-year-old who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and who is comically trying to deny it.
How many times in this thread have I explained that you cannot accept the EOP entry site if you don't reject the autopsy brain photos because those photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and the righty-rear occipital lobe and because any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe?
You are so poorly versed on the basics of the medical evidence that you somehow misconstrued "cerebellum" and/or "right-rear occipital lobe" as "right cerebrum." Again, Google a brain diagram and learn the basics before you embarrass yourself again.
LOL! Uh, that's the point! It's not there! Sheesh. In the top-of-head photos, intact cerebral cortex is in/just below the very same location where the back-of-head photo shows the red spot, but the red spot is not there in the top-of-head photos, and instead we see only exposed and intact cerebral cortex, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there.
Humm, so you think that believing in a 7K-year-old Earth is far worse than believing in a flat Earth? Personally, I reject the young Earth view and believe the Earth is far older than 7K years, but one must admit that carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. On the other hand, the Flat Earth Society claims that all the thousands of photos and videos of the Earth have been faked or doctored.
"That is it"?? A difference of 10 cm in the entry wound's location and a difference of 20-plus degrees in the head's forward tilt are enormous factors and issues. They are not trivial details but major, crucial factors.
No, "the essential facts" are most certainly not "still there." Do you not grasp the fact that a 10-cm difference in the entry site's location and a 20-plus-degree difference in the head's forward tilt are gigantic and mutually incompatible differences?
I notice you ducked the issue of which entry site you're using. Why is that?
Again, if you use the cowlick site, you must face the unsolvable problems with that site, starting with the fact that accepting that site means you must reject the authenticity of the top-of-head autopsy photos because they show intact cerebral cortex at that same location, which is obviously impossible if a bullet entered there.
But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.
Thanks. Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area. You really got some grasp of perspective and sightline analysis.
Well, then, your "neuroanatomist" is as ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis as you are. BTW, don't shift the blame onto a dead man; you--supposedly an expert in photogrammetry and perspective---failed to check Riley's claim. Not only that you highlighted it in your wrapped propaganda. I'm not going to go along with your fantasy that the cowlick entry site occured in the vertex area.
Oh, I noticed the word "and". That's why I was referring to the "right-rear occipital lobe" being damaged. Anyone can look at the brain drawing and see the "right-rear occipital lobe" of cerebrum is damaged (as opposed to your claim it wasn't).
No goof on my part. You said an EOP bullet couldn't have gone through the cerebellum and the right-right occipital lobe because they were undamaged.
You claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged. The brain drawing says otherwise. Since you claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged, I can only conclude you thought it part of the cerebellum.
Are you wearing your sacred Mormon underwear on your head? :D
In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there.
Let's peel through your layers of falsehood and evasion by going back to the first comment in your previous reply:
Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.
Just FYI, I've been talking about the problems with the cowlick entry site for over 20 years, starting with my 1998 article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?" (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ)).
LOL! So now you, one of the most discredited and bungling clowns on any JFK forum--now you are going to call Dr. Joseph N. Riley "ignorant" and argue that he put the cowlick wound at the vertex?! I'm almost tempted to ask if you are a secret WC critic who is trying to make all lone-gunman theorists look bad.
Do you know who Dr. Riley was? He was a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the State University of New York, in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California, and in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Florida. He had papers published in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, in the Brain Research Bulletin, and in Science, and his work was cited in those journals and in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods.
And yet you are actually getting on a public board and claiming that he put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex based on his analysis of the intact cerebral cortex in the top-of-head autopsy photos! Just wow. You are the gift that keeps on giving.
What a hoot. You really should just stop with this juvenile dissembling, and bungling, and just admit you blundered.
"Cerebrum" refers to an area that contains two lobes of the brain. The cerebrum consists of the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe. The rear-bottom part of the occipital lobe is right next to the cerebellum.
Any bullet that hit at the EOP site at any kind of a downward angle would have torn through the right-rear part of the occipital lobe and the cerebellum. The HSCA FPP experts hammered the autopsy doctors on this point and stressed this point as one of their main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. You appear to be unaware of what the HSCA medical experts said about the condition of the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe.
Dr. Loquvam hammered Finck with the point that he could see no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum. The only damage that anyone has seen to the cerebellum in the autopsy brain photos is a tiny piece of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum. Other than that, the cerebellum is intact and undamaged. Loquvam pointed out to Finck that the brain photos do not even show bleeding from/in the cerebellum. And when Loquvam asked Finck to explain how the cerebellum could be in this condition if a bullet had entered at the EOP site, Finck finally said, "I don't know."
Have you not read the transcript of the HSCA testimony of Finck, Boswell, and Humes? How can you not know this stuff and then pretend you have any business talking about the medical evidence?
BTW, it should be noted that Finck later told the ARRB that he saw "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. He did not raise this point when the HSCA FPP was trying to get him to renounce the EOP entry site. Had he done so, this would have directly challenged the accuracy/authenticity of the brain photos, and apparently Finck was unwilling to ignite a firestorm with the HSCA medical experts.
LOL! If you were so stupid as to reach such a comical, ridiculous conclusion from my comments, that is just further proof that you have no business talking about the JFK case. However, I don't believe you. I don't believe you were so clueless as to conclude that I thought the occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum. I think it is obvious that you just blundered and that you're trying to blame your blunder on me.
You claim that the brain drawing shows damage to the right-rear occipital lobe. Huh, that's curious, because the HSCA medical experts said the opposite. As I've noted, you don't seem to know what the HSCA FPP experts said about the right-rear occipital lobe and the cerebellum.
FPP member Dr. Charles Petty raised two objections to the EOP site based on the autopsy brain photos, one of which was the condition of the cerebellum. He put his other objection to Humes and Boswell, noting that the brain photos show no damage to the rear part of the “occipital lobes” (also known as the singular “occipital lobe”). I quote:
------------------------------
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)
-------------------------------
Again, have you not read the HSCA volumes? How can you not know this stuff?
Such a comment once again shows that, in addition to being a liar, you're a crude, bigoted jerk.
The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.
I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.
Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.
Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible.
I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.
I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage".
Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).
Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".
Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.
I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.
But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.
So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.
Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.
Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?
Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.
The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.
When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!
Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.
That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.
It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.
"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.
The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.
I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.
I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.
Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.
The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.
On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.
Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:
--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:
Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus))
The National Institutes of Health:
The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2)))
The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:
Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html))
The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):
The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:
Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum)) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic))
Science Direct:
The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum))
Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:
Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover))
--------------------------------------
If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.
You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."
Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.
LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!
You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.
You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.
Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.
BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?
And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos.
This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:
---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:
"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)
---------------------------------------
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster)).
I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:
When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!
More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:
---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.
The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------
So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"? I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.
What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.
Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3), pp. 2-3)
Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.
Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).
No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.
No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said again:
Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)
What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.
You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items. I see many reputable sites say there are six lobes. Most sites will merely say there are four main lobes. I admit I was wrong, but allow for other people seeing things through different lenses. You lack that ability.
Dear Reader. Be my guest: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 . See where Griffith refers to "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum. Griffith is a Mormon apologist and that group has a long history of demeaning people and shutting them down. People on the Forum. What do you think?
The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?
No less a researcher than Pat Speer treats this with caution:
"Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying
that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some
distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when
one views this photo under the assumption the bone in the foreground shows
forehead the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been
reflected at all!"
Humes famously told the HSCA that a piece of tissue (per FPP) near the hairline was an entry wound.
Funny. When Humes supposedly reflected the scalp to expose the cowlick wound area, and Finck wistfully claimed decades later they had taken a picture of a bared skull clean down to the EOP level, where's the picture? Not in the "Military Review" inventory signed by the three pathologists.
"Every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP." Really?
Only Humes felt for the EOP and he got it wrong, according to the HSCA. No one else saw or felt for the EOP; they only saw the cowlick wound on the scalp and accepted Humes' EOP placement relative to it.
Is this image not representative of where you contend the cowlick wound is in the Top-of-the-Head Photo? Be clear; what changes are needed? Better yet, post your own graphic showing the area you contend show the cowlick wound almost near the cortex seen in the photo ("the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photo"). The vertex (a must landmark) must therefore be some distance from the cowlick wound.
Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area.
Wow, such dishonesty. Several replies ago, I said that we had both made statements about the cerebrum's lobes that were incorrect and was prepared to leave it at that, but you just couldn't let it go, and so you replied with your six-lobes argument. You are the one who "must have your way with even the most trivial items."
Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:
--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:
Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)
The National Institutes of Health:
The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))
The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:
Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)
The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):
The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:
Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)
Science Direct:
The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)
Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:
Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------
If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.
They think you're a childish liar who repeatedly discredits himself by offering juvenile excuses and denials when you’re caught making embarrassing blunders.
I made the factual observation that the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe are virtually undamaged in the autopsy brain photos (my exact words were that they are "virtually pristine" in the brain photos). You claimed I was wrong because the "right cerebrum" is damaged in the brain drawing. Let's read what you said, again:
You clearly did not understand that the cerebellum is not part of the right cerebrum. You also clearly did not realize that the right-rear occipital lobe is only a small part of the right cerebrum.
When I pointed out your blunder, you came up with the childish lie that you said "right cerebrum" because you somehow thought that I believed that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as separate areas.
Dear Reader. Here's one of my comments on the lobes:
"There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a
sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web
sites refer only to the main four."
No attack on Griffith or appeal to authority. The sixth lobe mentioned in passing. Griffith's reply:
I guess that why I unfairly said: "You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items."
Really? A lot have chimed in on our discussion, have they? And taken your side? :D
Griffith keeps rehashing the same old BS. He's thinks he's detected a mistake on my part like when he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion when John used the term "faith based".
BTW, why would I extensively quote or accept large parts of Pat Speer's site, if I'm only interested in one part of it? When you quote from the Warren Report or HSCA, do you add in everything and acknowledge their official conclusions? You suffer from Gish's Gallop, "a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." It was named after a blowhard creationist.
I am glad that you have acknowledged the accuracy of the Riley drawing's location of the cowlick wound. Thank you.
he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion
In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Dear Reader. Here's one of my comments on the lobes:
"There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a
sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web
sites refer only to the main four."
No attack on Griffith or appeal to authority. The sixth lobe mentioned in passing. Griffith's reply.
Griffith keeps rehashing the same old BS. He's thinks he's detected a mistake on my part like when he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion when John used the term "faith based".
BTW, why would I extensively quote or accept large parts of Pat Speer's site, if I'm only interested in one part of it? When you quote from the Warren Report or HSCA, do you add in everything and acknowledge their official conclusions? You suffer from Gish's Gallop, "a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." It was named after a blowhard creationist.
I am glad that you have acknowledged the accuracy of the Riley drawing's location of the cowlick wound. Thank you.
You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.
MT: In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there.
This misses/avoids the point. The point is that the part of the cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site is undamaged, which obviously proves that no bullet entered at that spot. Yes, the red spot is not visible in the top-of-head photos, as I have previously noted, but the cerebral cortex is undamaged in exactly the same spot where the red spot would be if the scalp were in its normal position, in exactly the same spot where the high entry wound was supposedly located.
I don’t know how much more plainly I can explain this. If a bullet entered at the Clark Panel/HSCA revised entry site, aka the high entry wound/the cowlick entry wound—if a bullet entered at this location, then there cannot be intact cerebral cortex directly beneath this entry point. It is impossible. A bullet could not have entered at the cowlick site without doing considerable damage to the underlying cerebral cortex.
You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.
BTW:
Jerry O:
You have the vertex located to far forwards on JFK's head. In the TotH photo, you can see the top/front of the right temporal flap (as seen in the other photos) partially open. The vertex is well behind that. The vertex is closer to where to put the cowlick site than where you indicaste.
I take it that you are very new to the JFK case and that you have not bothered to read most of my replies?
What do I think all of this proves? Well, it's very simple: A bullet that entered slightly above and to the right of the EOP could not have been fired from the sixth-floor window. The only way that the WC could get the trajectory to work was to assume that JFK's head was titled over 50 degrees forward, a claim that nobody takes seriously anymore. I'll let lone-gunman theorist Dr. Robert Artwohl give his take on the trajectory problem posed by the EOP entry site:
---------------------------------------
Given the position of the President’s head in frame 312 of the Zapruder film (the moment just before the head burst), for a bullet to enter just above the EOP and exit the right frontotemporoparietal area, it would have had to travel in an upward direction, fired from inside the limousine’s trunk. Not even the most radical or imaginative of the conspirati has supposed a sniper to have been in this location. ("JFK's Assassination: Conspiracy, Forensic Science, and Common Sense," JAMA, March 24/31, 1993, 269:12, p. 1540)
---------------------------------------
You're lying again. The question is, Why did you reply at all? Why did you feel the need to respond after I said that we had both goofed? Why? Because you just couldn't let it go. In fact, let me quote what I said in my reply:
---------------------------------------
I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.
---------------------------------------
And I said nothing else on the subject in the rest of my reply and was prepared to drop the matter. But then you replied by claiming that there are four "major lobes" and that there are two more deep inside the brain. Why? Because you just had to be right (even though you were wrong). So, I replied that there are five major lobes and cited several expert sources to prove this. And in response you had the nerve to claim that I was the one who had to be right about every minor issue!
You're lying again. It's not "BS" at all. It's a simple statement of fact that anyone can easily verify by reading your previous replies, starting with your Reply #152: In response to my factual point that the brain photos show the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe in virtually pristine condition, you claimed that I was wrong because the brain photos show damage to the "right cerebrum," and then you asked if I was wearing my "Mormon underwear too tight."
When I pointed out your blunder and noted that the cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, you answered with the comical claim that you said "right cerebrum" because you thought I was assuming that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as two areas in my replies.
And here you are still refusing to admit that you committed an inexcusable, amateurish blunder. Granted, admitting such a blunder would show that you have no business talking about the medical evidence, but at least you'd be facing your blunder truthfully.
Incidentally, when are you going to address the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? You're still ducking them.
You're lying again. You deliberately cherry-picked a statement from Speer's online book to give the false impression that Speer has some doubt about whether Humes reflected the scalp and saw the underlying wound in the skull, when in fact, as I proved, Speer has no doubt. But someone who had never read Speer's book would have no idea how dishonestly you quoted him.
Incidentally, when are you going to address the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? You're still ducking them.
You're lying again. I never expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley's location of the cowlick entry site. You did. Dr. Riley located it where everyone has located it. This is a non-issue that you've made up to avoid admitting another blunder.
When I quoted Dr. Riley on the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site, you said Riley was "ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis" and then made the comical claim that by citing Riley's research on the cowlick site I was putting the site "in the vertex area" (Reply #154). I jumped all over you for this astounding gaffe:
---------------------------------------
Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.
---------------------------------------
Your first attempt to explain your blunder was to double-down on it and repeat it, saying that you refused to go along with my "fantasy that the cowlick entry site occurred in the vertex area" (Reply #156), when in fact neither I nor Riley had even remotely implied that the cowlick site was "in the vertex area."
But then, apparently, you realized that your blunder was too obvious to deny and so you changed gears by pretending that my citing of Riley somehow indicated that I was not dealing with the spatial relationship of the cowlick site to the vertex, when I'd said nothing about the vertex and when you were the one who brought up the vertex, even though it has nothing to do with the cowlick site. You just made this up out of thin air as a smokescreen to try to avoid admitting another blunder. Your argument here is a continuation of this childish smokescreen.
So, now that we've exposed your ducking and dodging and dissembling, how do you explain the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site, as Riley discusses in his article and illustrates with his first graphic in the article? How do you explain that?
And how do you square the subcortical damage with the cowlick entry site, especially given the fact that there is no connecting path/cavitation between that damage and the cortical damage?
These are just two of the problems with the cowlick site. You have yet to address any of them. So let's just start with the two above-posed questions regarding (1) the intact cerebral cortex in the cowlick site's location and (2) the subcortical damage far below the cowlick site and the fact that there is no connecting path/cavitation between the cortical and subcortical damage.
You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.
In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?
I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).
All this wonderful posting and with exhibits too. Whatever is missing from this theory though.
Oh, I know what it is. There is not a plausible explanation for the fracture in the windshield of the limousine. The fracture in the windshield of the limousine gives a clue as to the direction of travel of the bullet. The windshield fracture indicates the bullet had been traveling from the TSBD. The 6th floor to be exact.
The bullet fragment had to have been angling up and away from the wound in the side of JFK’s head to create the windshield fracture. Guess what, the bullet had changed course from a downward angle to a horizontal if not upward angle after penetrating JFK’s skull. Is not that the conclusion basically reached by Humes?
I don't know where you're getting this stuff. No, Humes never made that claim. In fact, he said that the anatomical evidence did not allow him to say whether the bullet came from above but only from behind. The WC's diagram of the head-wound trajectory (CE 388) has the bullet traveling straight at an upward angle, since the EOP site was below the exit wound described in the autopsy report. How did the WC make this "work"? As I've mentioned several times, they assumed that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward, as we see in CE 388. That's the only way a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have created the entry and exit wounds described in the autopsy report.
When critics began to point out this impossible head-wound trajectory, Ramsey Clark convened the Clark Panel, and the Clark Panel came up with the bogus cowlick entry site 4 inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it. They did so to try to deal with the trajectory issue and also to try to deal with the newly appearing 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail, neither of which was mentioned in the autopsy report and in the doctors' 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials.
We need to keep in mind that in the autopsy pathologists' report on their 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials, they said the EOP entry site was visible in four of the autopsy photos. That is very interesting, because Hodges said he could see the EOP entry wound in some of the autopsy photos.
As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.
I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)).That image shows that Riley put the "cowlick" location twice as far forward as the HSCA did, so Riley isn't a useful source. He made a foundational mistake when he assumed that the "AP" view was straight on, instead of being shot at an upward angle through the head, and this mistake [mis]informs the rest of his analyses.
You might also want to read the exchanges that Dr. Riley had with lone-gunman theorists on this issue in the main JFK newsgroups, such as the alt.conspiracy.jfk Google Group. In one of his replies, Dr. Riley noted,
---------------------------------------
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet.
----------------------------------------
Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). He also mentioned that a cowlick wound would have been visible in the skull after the pathologists reflected the scalp. Keep in mind that Stringer also informed the ARRB that he took pictures of the head after the scalp had been reflected, at the direction of the autopsy doctors (pp. 71, 93-95).The operative phrase being "35 years later." How well did he remember it by then, I wonder? If you look at the color BOH photos, the "red spot" as you call it is at the center of the photo, and someone's holding a ruler right next to it. That would only happen if the "red spot" was the subject of the photo. That is, the "red spot" really is the entry wound in the scalp.
I should add that two of the color autopsy color prints are labeled "missile wound in posterior skull with scalp reflected" (ARRB Exhibit 13, Numbers 44 and 45).
Yet, Jerry Organ continues to peddle his silly fiction that the autopsy doctors never reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound and did not see the wound in the skull.
We should also remember what Dr. Finck said about the rear head entry wound in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, and note that this was after he had reviewed the autopsy materials for the Justice Department in late 1966. He said, "I don't endorse the 100 mm [relocation of the entrance wound]. . . . I saw the wound of entry in the back of the head . . . slightly above the EOP, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 mm above it."Finck didn't arrive at the Bethesda until after the skull had been pulled apart and the brain removed. He might not be the best source for this.
One cannot be viewed as credible if one clings to the cowlick entry site without explaining the following issues (among other issues):The same way that paper will continue tearing far from where the force causing the tear is being applied. This is one of those argument that wounds superficially important, until you stop to consider how things actually work. Another way of saying it is, if you want to claim that the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a "cowlick" entry wound, then it's up to you to support your contention and not simply expect us to hallucinate it with you.
1. How a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, especially given the fact that there is no path/cavitation connecting the subcortical damage with the cortical damage. I have raised this issue repeatedly, and you guys just keep ducking it.
2. How two bullet fragments, supposedly from the cross section of an FMJ missile, could have ended up 1 cm below the cowlick site, especially if a bullet struck there at a downward angle. I defy you to cite a single case in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has behaved in this manner.Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials? Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?
3. Why not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table of the skull or anywhereWould that be expected in all cases? I'll bet you have no idea.
near the outer table.
4. Why not one of the skulls in the Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes, even though those skulls, being dried skulls, were more brittle than live skulls. (The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front.)The lack of extensive fracturing would then probably be good evidence that the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. You didn't think this through very well, did you?
5. Why the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-rays does not align with the cowlick site and does not even come close to extending to the cowlick site. (Indeed, most of the high fragment trail is concentrated in the right frontal region, near the small notch in the right temple that several experts have identified on the skull x-rays. Gee, what a coincidence.)If the high fragment trail isn't compatible with a "cowlick" entry, then it would be even less compatible with an EOP entry. You didn't think this through again.
There are other problems with the cowlick site, but these are the main ones that must be faced. Ducking them, pretending they don't exist, will not make them go away. You guys can keep posting bogus and/or irrelevant graphics and going off on endless diversionary evasions, but doing so won't make these problems disappear. It should tell you something that even a diehard WC apologist such as Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who is also your side's most qualified wound ballistics expert, has rejected the cowlick site.The only problems I see here arise from your continuing reliance on begging the question and other faulty logic.
That image shows that Riley put the "cowlick" location twice as far forward as the HSCA did, so Riley isn't a useful source. He made a foundational mistake when he assumed that the "AP" view was straight on, instead of being shot at an upward angle through the head, and this mistake [mis]informs the rest of his analyses.
The operative phrase being "35 years later." How well did he remember it by then, I wonder?
If you look at the color BOH photos, the "red spot" as you call it is at the center of the photo, and someone's holding a ruler right next to it. That would only happen if the "red spot" was the subject of the photo. That is, the "red spot" really is the entry wound in the scalp.
As for any photo of the BOH wound involving reflection of the scalp, it's worth considering that F8 does indeed show the BOH wound, and the scalp being reflected.
Finck didn't arrive at the Bethesda until after the skull had been pulled apart and the brain removed. He might not be the best source for this.
And here comes the Gish Gallop:
The same way that paper will continue tearing far from where the force causing the tear is being applied. This is one of those argument that wounds superficially important, until you stop to consider how things actually work. Another way of saying it is, if you want to claim that the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a "cowlick" entry wound, then it's up to you to support your contention and not simply expect us to hallucinate it with you.
Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials?
Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?
Would that be expected in all cases? I'll bet you have no idea.
The lack of extensive fracturing would then probably be good evidence that the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. You didn't think this through very well, did you?
If the high fragment trail isn't compatible with a "cowlick" entry, then it would be even less compatible with an EOP entry. You didn't think this through again.
The only problems I see here arise from your continuing reliance on begging the question and other faulty logic.
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:
That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.
Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.
I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.
Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.
Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos, as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.
So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?
Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.
It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.
And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.
Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.
The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.
Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage. Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:
----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.
The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .
However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.
First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .
An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------
You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.
You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.
We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.
Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:
---------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------
Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------
LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.
You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.
This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.
It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve.
HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.
I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.
This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?
I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.
And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:
That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.
Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.
I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.
Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.
Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos, as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.
So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?
Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.
It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.
And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.
Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.
The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.
Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage. Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:
----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.
The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .
However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.
First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .
An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------
You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.
You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.
We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.
Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:
---------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------
Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------
LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.
You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.
This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.
It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve.
HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.
I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.
This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?
I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.
And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."
Riley's graphic most....
Lifton: The top front was intact?
Stringer: Right. (Transcript, p. 5)
What a nice post, you proved you can copy and paste, whoop-de-doo!
But at the end of the day you're a walking talking contradiction! You're on record that autopsy photos are faked but you don't seem to realize that "Riley's graphic" and subsequent analysis is based on the Authentic Autopsy photos and now with every fiber of your existence you're defending a top of head wound that NONE of your often quoted witnesses claimed to see? Can you please explain what you believe because it looks like you are just looking for a fight that you can't possibly win.
The authentic autopsy photos (which your latest prize Eyewitness seems to endorse) is clear, there was a single bullet entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head and NO back of head exit wound.
Btw what evidence of any kind that is in the official record do you believe to be authentic?? JohnM
HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.
The exiting bullet is not true. Good work though you answered the question as to when the bullet fragmented. You have stumbled on to the answer as to how the bullet’s trajectory changed to exit where it did. All the skull tests prove it was necessary for the brain to be present for an accurate test. Without it the bullet does not fracture the skull in the same way.
This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?
Interesting, the only way to explain the cranial factures is the bullet first began to fragment on entering the skull. You have answered your own question. It would be compatible with the bullet having fragmented for there even to have left the trail.
Other than a lot of medical terms that give the appearance of knowledge, there does not seem to be a viable theory of any kind. A two carcano assassination who would have thunk it?
This is a bunch of evasive, clueless drivel. You have no clue what you're talking about and clearly don't seem to grasp the significance of the evidence and the problems with the cowlick site and with the back-of-head fragments. Do you just not care that your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has rejected the cowlick site and admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull?Michael i appreciate your commitment to the jfk saga. But, i have never corrected u on one little point that i have seen u make umpteen times on this forum. So i will correct it now.
There may not seem to be a "viable theory of any kind" to you, but that's because you simply brush aside every piece of evidence that you can't explain (and/or don't understand) and duck every problem with your own absurd theory of the shooting. The only place where there does not appear to be a "viable theory of any kind" is in Lone-Gunman Theory La La Land.
My theory of the shooting suffers from none of the unsolvable problems that yours does. My theory explains the back-of-head fragments in a rational, precedented way, unlike yours. My theory explains the problem of the fractures, unlike yours. My theory explains the cortical and subcortical damage, unlike yours. My theory explains the impossible virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos, unlike yours. My theory explains the massive eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, unlike yours. My theory explains the brazen contradiction between the autopsy brain photos and the autopsy skull x-rays (which show over half of the right brain missing), unlike yours. Etc., etc., etc.
First, a few follow-up points:
-- F-32 (Figure 29 in 7 HSCA 125) removes any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley’s placement of the cowlick site in his “HSCA Entrance” graphic in “What Struck John.” One can perhaps understand how someone could mistakenly think that Riley placed the site higher than it is placed in F-307, but only if they did not stop to consider the fact that F-307 shows the site from a lower-rear view, whereas Riley shows it from a top-of-head view. F-32, however, showing a largely right profile view, makes it clear that the HSCA put the site exactly where Riley put it (and vice-versa), right around 1 inch above the lambda, at least 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture.
F-32 Loc of Cowlick Entry Site
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing)
F-32 and Riley Graphic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing)
This is a crucial point because, as Riley notes, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site, proving that the site cannot be a bullet wound. Thus, on this basis alone, the cowlick entry site is both invalid and impossible.
-- Dr. Finck specified in his 1/25/1965 memo to General Blumberg on the autopsy that he saw the rear head entry wound in the scalp and in the underlying occipital bone:
--------------------------------------------
I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (p. 1)
--------------------------------------------
We see from the date of this memo that he wrote this account barely 13 months after the autopsy. Thus, his placement of the entry wound in the occipital bone is strong evidence for the EOP site, since it boggles the mind to think that a certified forensic pathologist would have located in the occiput a wound that would have been clearly above the lambdoid suture and above the lambda and thus obviously in the parietal bone.
-- The HSCA’s trajectory expert, NASA’s Dr. Tom Canning, in order to get the sixth-floor-to-cowlick-site trajectory to “work,” found it necessary to place JFK a good 2 feet farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him (HSCA exhibit F-138). Indeed, Canning put JFK nearly to the middle of the seat. This is what Canning had to do to maintain the fiction that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit the cowlick site and then exited above the right ear.
F-138 Canning Head Shot Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing)
This is especially odd because in his SBT diagram (F-140), Canning put JFK at the far-right end of the seat, right next to the right door of the limo, exactly where photos and footage show him (but Canning had to put Connally substantially farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him to get the SBT trajectory to “work”).
F-140 Canning SBT Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing)
Here are more problems that the medical and trajectory evidence poses for any lone-gunman scenario regarding the cowlick entry site and/or the EOP entry site:
-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was 6 x 15 mm. It says the scalp wound was 6 x 15 mm and that there was a “corresponding wound” in the underlying skull, i.e., that the hole in the skull was the same size as the hole in the scalp. Unless one wants to assume that the autopsy doctors severely mismeasured the wound, this poses a serious problem for those who claim that a 6.5 mm bullet made this wound. Why? Because entry wounds in skulls are always, always larger than the diameter of the penetrating bullet. Always.
The WC explained the 6 mm width by conjuring up the fiction that “the elastic recoil of the skull shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.” Uh, no, it does not. Scalp tissue will slightly recoil after a bullet penetrates it, but skull bone will do no such thing. At least the WC did not make the absurd argument that the autopsy doctors mismeasured the wound.
-- As Howard Donahue noted, the HSCA’s proposed exit point made no sense when considered in light of the skull x-rays. The x-rays show that the skull shattered for 5 inches above and behind the exit point, yet there is no defect below or in front of it! If the bullet smashed skull for 4-5 inches above and behind its exit point, it surely would have created at least a small portal of damage below and in front of it.
-- Moreover, as several medical experts have noted, how can fragments be embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those 5 inches of missing skull bone? What is holding those fragments in place if the skull was blasted out at that location? If the skull x-rays are to be believed, there would have been no bone there in which fragments could have been embedded, yet there they are. Something is seriously wrong here.
-- The Clark Panel did not see the small “semi-circular” exit point that the HSCA FPP claimed to identify in the right temple in the skull x-rays. The Clark Panel identified “relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed . . . in the right cerebral hemisphere,” and noted a trail of tiny fragments 1.8 inches long that allegedly lined up with the cowlick site but that dissipated before reaching a point in the frontal region.
-- The autopsy report says that fractures radiated from the EOP entry wound:
--------------------------------------------
Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. (p. 4)
--------------------------------------------
However, the WC’s own wound ballistics tests failed to produce a single entry wound in skull bone with extensive cracking emanating from it, even though the tests were done with dried human skulls. Dried skulls are more brittle than live skulls, yet no extensive fracturing originated from any of the entry wounds in the WC’s tests.
Does this invalidate the EOP site? No, because the cracking could have been caused by an exiting bullet after a bullet entered the EOP site. This would explain why part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a large late-arriving skull fragment. The first head shot hit the skull at the EOP site. The second head shot hit the skull in the right temple and exited the occiput, causing extensive fracturing and creating the large defect in the lower half of the occiput that dozens of witnesses in three different locations described.
I see that Jerry Organ has posted another one of his comical, blundering, and dishonest graphics in Reply #176. In his silly graphic, Organ ignores HSCA exhibits F-32 and F-307 and claims that Riley put the cowlick site 2 inches above the lambda and nearly 3 inches above the lamdoid suture!
Seriously, is this guy a closet conspiracy theorist who's trying to embarrass the lone-gunman position? Anyone with two working eyes can see that Riley put the cowlick site 1 inch above the lambda, not 2 inches.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)
The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.
The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.
No, the problem is that you are ignoring clear reference points, ignoring HSCA exhibit F-32, and ignoring where Riley and the HSCA placed the cowlick site in relation to those points (lambda and lambdoid suture). Your silly graphic has the cowlick site so far forward that it's nearly directly above the right ear! Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and see that he put the site well behind the right ear. They can also see that he put the site only 1 inch above the lambda, whereas you have the "CT Cowlick Wound Area" 2 inches above the lambda.
You see, when you guys are confronted with irrefutable photographic evidence that destroys the lone-gunman theory, you just can't face it. Instead, you see the Emperor's New Clothes and post ridiculous graphics that a child can see are bogus.
And, as I've said before, it is mighty bold of you to get on a public forum and claim that a respected and published neuroscientist couldn't tell the difference between 2 inches above the lambda and 1 inch above the lambda, and couldn't distinguish between a point on the skull that was clearly well behind the right ear and a point that was nearly directly above it. Wow. I mean for you, who thought the cerebellum was part of "the right cerebrum," to even be challenging Dr. Riley on anything is amusing.
Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!Apparently the conspirators were/are able to fool the top forensic and photographic experts in the nation, people with hundreds of years of experience and who studied the original material, but some guy sitting behind a computer examining 12th generation photos is able to see through their ruse.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXWmJLtz/HSCA-medical-Panel.png)
Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv8HVVDt/Riley-worked-from-authentic-autopsy-photos.png)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48771#relPageId=3
JohnM
Apparently the conspirators were/are able to fool the top forensic and photographic experts in the nation, people with hundreds of years of experience and who studied the original material, but some guy sitting behind a computer examining 12th generation photos is able to see through their ruse.
I'm not convinced.
Nice work Jerry, as we know Griffith's perception of perspective is amateurish at best, for instance his laughable analysis of the Zapruder film is downright hilarious and even when his childish conclusions are proven beyond all doubt to be wrong, the man who never met a conspiracy that he didn't like, doubles down with the stupidity!
JohnM
Thank you for the compliment, JohnM. I believe some people struggle with 3D visualization. Remember when Cartoon Ernie was here, and Craig and you would point out some error he made because he didn't allow for perspective? Ernie thought perspective was an LN trick.
Griffith can't see the problem with applying a 2D orthographic image (representing a level horizontal plane) to a photograph taken obliquely. Add to that the nearness of the camera to the object that induced a substantial amount of perspective.
Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!
Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory? JohnM
LOL! WC apologists have flexed and morphed and twisted all over the place over the years to reinforce the farcical lone-gunman theory--a theory that about 2/3 of the Western world rejects, I might reiterate.
Do I need to remind you that for years your side insisted that a bullet--from the sixth-floor window--struck slightly above the EOP? Do I need to remind you that for years your side said that the alleged magic bullet struck above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck? Do I need to remind you that the same HSCA medical panel that you just finished praising determined that the alleged magic bullet struck below the throat wound and that the back wound shows that the bullet entered at a slightly upward angle? Do I need to remind you that your side's leading wound ballistics expert repudiated the cowlick entry site in 2005, and that many WC apologists have followed his lead? Do I need to remind you that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190, but that most WC apologists reject this observable fact because it destroys the current version of the single-bullet theory, even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?
Let's consider some of the experts who have said the HSCA medical panel was wrong about the rear head entry wound's location and wrong about the wound's alleged presence on the autopsy skull x-rays:
-- Dr. Doug Ubelaker (ARRB forensic anthropologist)
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick (ARRB forensic radiologist)
-- Dr. Pierre Finck (forensic pathologist, chief of wound ballistics at the AFIP, and one of the three JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. James Humes (chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell (chief of pathology at the National Naval Medical School and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD, a medical doctor who has conducted assassination-related wound ballistics tests)
-- Dr. David Mantik (PhD in physics and MD in radiation oncology with a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a former member of the HSCA medical panel--Wecht has repudiated the cowlick entry site)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (MD in neuroscience, a former professor at the Yale School of Medicine, a former director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California-San Diego)
-- Dr. Fred Hodges (a neurologic radiologist, chief of neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, a former president of the American Society of Neuroradiology, and a former member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel)
This is a partial list.
Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting. He proved that the autopsy photos destroy the cowlick entry site, that the cowlick entry site cannot explain the subcortical damage, and that the clearly separate and unconnected wound paths seen in the autopsy materials absolutely prove that two bullets hit JFK in the head.
I have already explained my view of the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. Let me do so again. Pay attention this time: The skull x-rays are indeed x-rays of JFK's skull, but we know from hard scientific evidence that they have been altered--and, as we have seen, you guys have no answer for this evidence.
The autopsy photos now in evidence are only part of the autopsy photos that were taken. We have known for years now that there was a second set of autopsy photos. The ARRB interviewed the Navy photo technician who processed the second set of autopsy photos, and several people who saw those photos said they showed a large wound in the back of the head.
The top-of-head autopsy photos destroy the cowlick site, since they show intact cerebral cortex at the site' location, proving that no bullet entered at the site. I am unsure whether the top-of-head photos have been doctored, as some photographic experts have argued, or whether they were taken after the illicit pre-autopsy surgery to the head and thus represent the altered condition of the top of the head and not the head's condition as it existed in Dallas (which would explain why the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with gauze saw no large wound above the right ear).
But, hey, if you insist that the top-of-head photos are authentic and accurate, then you must face the fact that those photos destroy the cowlick entry site. So far, your and your fellow WC apologists' only answer has been the demonstrably false claim that Riley put the cowlick site twice as far above from the lambda as the HSCA FPP did. HSCA exhibit F-32 alone destroys this bogus, dishonest claim.
Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.
even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?
Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting.
Right, so massive evidence that autopsy photos F3, F5, F6, and F7 have been doctored is what you call "diversion." In your brain, massive evidence that the large head wound was in the back of the head is "diversion." Your only other answer to all this evidence is that "they were all mistaken."
Here we go again, you're not only on record in this Forum saying the Zapruder Film is fake, you've got web pages about this "fakery" and even further than that, you've forever documented your opinion about the Zapruder Film in your book, yet you still use the Zapruder Film as proof of your latest "observation"?
This, Mr. Griffith is why you can't be taken seriously about any of your theories. JohnM
The only devastation that can be seen here, is how to make heads or tails out of your latest conspiracy theory??
I, along with most LNer researchers since day one, accept the authenticated evidence as being, well, authentic. Whereas you just chop and change whichever way the wind blows, which significantly impacts the last specks of your rapidly depleting credibility.
Remember when,
JohnM
Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.
This might be more of a case of you just don't want to accept reality.
Sturdivan explains the fragments and the deforming bullet leaving a trail of fragments along its path through the brain. You are dismissing Sturdivan’s explanation?
Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?
Mr. STURDIVAN. Well, this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced X-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a softnosed or hollow point bullet that was fully jacketed and, therefore, not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet because in either of those cases, the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So, this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes. Incidentally, those fragments that are left by the bullet are also very small and do not move very far from their initial, from the place where they departed the bullet. Consequently, they tend to be clustered very closely around the track of the bullet.
------------------------------------------------
There were traces of copper left by the jacketed copper bullet on JFK’s suit coat and shirt, but you claim the same is not possible for the back of the head wound. That is really your belief?
The FBI discovered traces of copper on both JFK’s coat and shirt where the bullet entered his back.
FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 14 (maryferrell.org) page 85
So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.Here we go again.
There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.
But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.
What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?
LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:
Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:
---------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------
Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------
Does this refresh your memory?
Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.
And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?
Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:
---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. . . .
Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.
Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head.
One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."
The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound.
The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)
---------------------------------------------------
You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.
So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.
There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.
So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.
There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.
But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.
What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?
LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:
Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:
---------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------
Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------
Does this refresh your memory?
Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.
And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?
Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:
---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. . . .
Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.
Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head.
One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."
The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound.
The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)
---------------------------------------------------
You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.
Here we go again. U will not find one gelatine test or soap test etc in the history of the universe that shows that a fragmenting bullet leaves a cloud of fragments anywhere near the bullet's entry into the gelative or soap etc. The fragments are all always much deeper. Even if hitting something very hard just before entry. Wait. U said exploding bullet (i mean Sturdivan said). Ok, exploding is different. I will have to have another look.
Oh, I get it, the conspirators only altered the sequences that don't affect your wacky conspiracy theories, how frigging convenient!
Anyway, I don't want to offend you and call you an amateur because that would be an insult to an amateur, it's obvious that you have never done any basic editing much less the extensive fakery that you suggest happened to the Zapruder film. Because even 1 removed frame interrupts the flow of the film and is immediately obvious.
For example you have said that they simply edited out numerous Zapruder frames* so that Clint and Jackie appeared to be close in the Nix film, and that they both appeared far away in the Zapruder Film but,
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Hill between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Jackie between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous movement of the backgrounds, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous and synchronized movement of the crowd, you didn't.
What you are inadvertently implying and clearly don't understand is that the fakery involved required separating individual elements, travelling mattes and excessively complicated compositing, each of which involved resizing, matching motion blur and integration at the granular level.
You are so far out of your depth but what the heck, how about you just say they altered the film and you can leave it at that.
Clueless Alterationist's make me SICK! JohnM
So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.
You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.
This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.
Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?
The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?
FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.
FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA)
Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):
https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up (https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up)
And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.
This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.
Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.
We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.
Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.
Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.
You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.
Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.
What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school-level English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.
Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors.
Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist,
Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh?
So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.Donahue (MORTAL ERROR) says that fragments are not found near entry. Sturdivan says they are found near entry. Gelatine tells us that Donahue is correct.
You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.
Maybe you have become too desperate to prove this point that you are no longer rationally assessing the evidence and the experts’ opinions. You are reading things into their words that are not there.
Let me help you stay on track; your point is not proven by what he said. You said it was a bullet fragment Sturdivan said it was not.
Baden and Sturdivan both think it has not one thing to do with the bullet yet here you are claiming it does. Exactly what is your point? That you know more than they do. You are arguing it is a piece of a bullet and they are telling you that would be impossible because of its shape and that somehow proves your point.
A conspiracy believer talking about a frangible bullet, how unique. To actually be a card carrying certified CT don’t you have to have at least one exploding bullet in the story?
The bullet is fragmenting in the brain and as it strikes the inside of the right side of his head upon exiting, it completely fragments leaving fragments. Is your point is the exit wound is an entrance wound? This whole explanation from you circles back to two shooters with carcanos. A point you do not seem to want to address. Where is the evidence of a second bullet.
You seem unable to address the window and chrome strip damage as being an indicator of the direction of the bullets travel. That alone pretty much ends this conspiracy mental meltdown. All discussion as to where the shot came from has to center around the TSBD. A shot from the front is not even in the realm of possibilities.
I have read enough conspiracy books to know how one dimensional they really are.
A piece of evidence is contorted to be the basis for a massive coverup. This is no different. Everything is explained if their statements are not distorted and perverted in an attempt to extract a different line of reasoning.
Maybe you need to write an addendum to your book explaining how the shot could only have come from the rear because the bullet fragments went forward of JFK. It is just simple physics. Make sure you explain how a bullet that is yawing in flight could alter the trajectory once it hits the skull and brain and follow a new trajectory based on the direction the nose of the bullet is pointing in flight. That will help with your difficulties understanding the entrance and exit wounds. If you would actually read Sturdivan’s testimony instead of scouring it trying to prove strange beliefs, he explains all of this in simple to understand English.
So you agree a bullet can leave a fragment or traces upon entering the skull. If it can leave a little on something pliable like fabric, it can leave a lot on a bone. Baden and Sturdivan agree with you, but that it is not part of a bullet. The question is not can there be a fragment, the question is the description of the fragment being a 6.5mm round shape.
You are totally and hopelessly clueless. You still have not read most of my previous replies in this thread, have you? Let me give you a brief history lesson on the 6.5 mm object:
1. The 6.5 mm object was first identified by the Clark Panel. Not having access to optical density (OD) analysis, they assumed, logically enough, that it was a bullet fragment, since it clearly is not a bone fragment.
2. The RC and HSCA medical panels noted the object and likewise assumed it was a bullet fragment.
3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fragment's existence. No WC apologist has yet explained how in the world this fragment could have come from an FMJ bullet that entered at the cowlick site, much less from the bullet's cross section. The HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the fragment's presence. Sturdivan simply ignored the fragment in his 2005 book.
4. Some 20 years after the HSCA, using new optical density measurement technology, Dr. David Mantik, who happens to be a physicist and a radiation oncologist, discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. He also found, using high magnification and OD analysis, that the image of the 6.5 mm object was double-exposed/ghosted over a genuine smaller fragment that is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size.
The brightness of the 6.5 mm object obscured the genuine smaller fragment within it from detection, until Dr. Mantik examined it with an OD densitometer, which he uses in his work as a radiation oncologist, and then applied high magnification to it. Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements and analysis.
5. Sturdivan only announced that he no longer believed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment after Dr. Mantik published his OD analysis in 1998. Sturdivan first rejected the object as a fragment in 1999 in emails to researchers, and he rejected it as a fragment in his 2005 book JFK Myths.
6. Sturdivan, to his great credit, began explaining in 1999 why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment but must be an artifact. He did so again in his 2005 book. However, as mentioned, he did not even try to explain the McDonnel fragment. Since he had already admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull, he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for the McDonnel fragment.
7. Moreover, Sturdivan said nothing in his 2005 book about the genuine smaller fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. He was surely aware of it, because he cited Dr. Mantik's OD analysis. Yet, he chose to ignore it, obviously because he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for it.
This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.
Where in all of your mangled-English propaganda is there an explanation for the two separate wound paths through the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage? Where is it? How did those two wound paths get created if only one bullet struck the skull?
Where is the entrance wound that can explain the high fragment trail? Where is it? Even your own side's best wound ballistics expert has repudiated the entry site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP fabricated to try to explain the high fragment trail. Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail's existence? Huh? Why?
LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.
Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.
And I say you're lying. You repeatedly blunder all over the place over basic stuff, stuff that has been covered in numerous scholarly books on the case for conspiracy. Heck, you don't even have a good handle on the lone-gunman theory.
More of your blah-blah sweeping general assertions based on your ignorance of JFK assassination research. Just look at how badly you blundered over the 6.5 mm object, as we see above. You didn't even know the basics about the 6.5 mm object, not to mention the McDonnel fragment.
The only person contorting evidence is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.
LOL! Uhhhhh, how about the two bullet fragments in the back of the skull???????? Did you forget about those? They certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did they? How about the bullet or fragment that caused the four-inch, dug-out bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street? That certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did it?
What's more, how about the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague? How do you get a bullet/fragment from JFK's skull to a curb over 250 feet away with the limousine's roll bar in between? Any fragment from JFK's head would have had to magically clear the limo's roll bar to have any chance of hitting the curb near Tague. Did the fragment have its own propulsion system that enabled it to magically fly over the roll bar? If the windshield and the windshield's chrome stopped the two fragments found in the front of the limo from leaving the limo, how in the world would another fragment from JFK's head have cleared the roll bar?
And on and on and on we could go. The problem is that your knowledge of the JFK case is very limited and that your research has been woefully biased and incomplete.
"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.
What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?
Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.
MTG--”LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.”
Seriously, you have to be told that there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome strip damage than the trajectory of the head wound of JFK? Do you think it is because JFK is sitting in the back of the car and the fragment damage takes place 10 feet in front of him. You believe that by some form of conspiratorial magic the trajectories of all three should somehow line up? Really?
The HSCA did everything to help the conspiratorial cause, but the evidence clearly shows it was just one shooter.
“Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets could be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository.”
-----------------------------------------------------
So which of your statements is the correct statement. Can there be, or is it, can there not be a fragment left at the outer table? According to you and Dr. McDonnel there can be a fragment left at the outer table. According to you, there cannot be a fragment left at the outer table.
MTG--”3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table.”
MTG--”What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?”
=====================
You are making this way too hard. It is really simple. Here is what the truth is and it explains the assassination. There were only two shots fired that day by LHO. The rest of this nonsense is just mental masturbation over nothing. It is nothing more than wallowing around in the mud looking for evidence and taking that evidence out of context in the hopes of proving some bizarre conspiracy. Your combined explanation of the headshot makes absolutely no sense when viewed in its totality. Where are the entrance and exit wounds for the two shots? Where are the witnesses confirming two shots struck the president’s head? Zapruder’s film completely affirms there was only one shot not two that struck JFK’s head.
What is interesting and I think defines the need for a conspiracy in the mindset of people believing in a conspiracy, is the fact that Josiah Thompson knew in 1966 that LHO only fired two shots. He wrote about the shell information in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. He knew from having examined 30+ shells that the chamber mark was not on CE 543 but was on every other shell he examined that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI during testing. Even the unfired cartridge CE141 had the chamber mark. The chamber marks existence was first identified by the FBI in Hoover’s June 2nd letter to Rankin. Josiah Thompson chose to use the information in a manner that this somehow proved the existence of a second shooter instead of using it to prove the SBT and lone gunman.
Now here it is 60+ years later and you are still taking known information and attempting to pervert it into a conspiracy. Not because there is a conspiracy but because you need one to understand what happened. Good for you to be part of the 2/3 of the people who believe but cannot even raise a question as to whether there was a conspiracy.
-------------------------------------
MTG--"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.
This desire to be a lemming and join the crowd is definitely affecting your judgement. Maybe try to think for yourself.
Both the WC and HSCA conclusions state that the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. In reality the HSCA and WC believed there were only two shots not three. The HSCA four shot dictabelt and conspiracy nonsense were the result of the goofy thinking that took place in the 70’s. Wasn’t Gary Mack himself one of the sponsors of the Dictabelt fiasco you appear to follow.
-----------------------------------------------
MTG--”This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.”
No, I know what they are and their purpose, I just don’t think you do.
--------------------------------
It looks like you are lost and confused in all the different types of evidence. Maybe quantifying what is important and what is not will help you to understand. Here is a few to start you off.
Important—window damage, damage to chrome strip, trajectory, Eyewitness accounts of there only having been one shot and they hear the bullet hit, fragmented bullet evidence,
Not important—Unknown artifact that is not a bullet fragment, explaining a fragmenting bullets path through the brain, frangible bullets, quantifying brain damage when everyone knows a third of it was blown in the air.
It is interesting you do understand the importance of the forward damage to the window and chrome strip. Actually, talking about it seems to make you squeal which is encouraging that you really do understand the importance.
-----------------------------------
MTG--”Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.”
Both Sides? You understand there is a whole other logical explanation for all this nonsense, but you choose to not believe it?
Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.
Doesn’t your star expert refute this?
Again, the reason for this is it was not a bullet fragment. You and a special case expert believe it is a bullet fragment, but I don’t see where anyone else does.
This has got to be the most pitiful, witless reply I have ever read on any JFK forum. You either suffer from a serious reading comprehension problem or you must think that everyone else does. If this were a private dialogue, I would not even bother responding. But, since this is a public dialogue, I will reply by making the following points:
1. There are at least two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull: the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. Those fragments could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
Your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has explained quite capably why no FMJ bullet would or could have left a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull. Several others ballistics and forensic experts have likewise noted that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on the outer table, much less between the outer table and the galea (i.e., the McDonnel fragment), when they penetrate skulls. No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has done so.
2. The only feasible, rational, scientific explanation for those fragments is that they are ricochet fragments. We now know that the Clark Panel privately believed that the 6.5 mm "fragment" was a ricochet fragment. Not having the benefit of OD analysis, the panel did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that there is a genuine smaller fragment within the object's image.
We know from a number of eyewitness accounts that a bullet struck the pavement near and behind the limousine soon after the limo turned onto Elm Street. The two back-of-head fragments came from the bullet that struck the pavement.
Even Gerald Posner admits that the accounts of a pavement strike are credible and that a bullet did strike the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting sequence. (However, Posner tries to explain the pavement strike with his bizarre tree-limb-collision theory in which the bullet split apart after hitting a limb of the intervening oak tree and sent one fragment sharply downward to strike the pavement behind the limo, and magically sent another fragment through the other tree limbs to fly over 400 feet, then strike the curb near Tague with enough force to chip the curb, and then send a piece of concrete streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face!)
3. To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.
Lead bullets can leave fragments on the outer table and in the scalp when they penetrate the skull. However, of course, your theory requires that only FMJ ammo was used. Also, there is no entry wound that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit the two back-of-head fragments, and, as noted, your theory cannot allow for a lead bullet anyway.
4. Uh, yes, absolutely, the windshield and chrome damage should at least roughly align with any alleged trajectory from the sixth-floor window through the skull, specifically with a trajectory from the alleged sniper's window and then to and through a point above the right ear.
A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.
When Congressman Fithian questioned Canning on this specific issue, why didn't Canning say, "Oh, we would never expect the windshield damage to align with the path of the bullet that struck the head"?
And why do you suppose Canning did not even try to align the chrome damage with the lone-gunman headshot trajectory? Obviously, if the windshield damage and the headshot trajectory "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment," the chrome damage would be even more unaligned with the headshot trajectory.
Moreover, I notice you guys have said nothing about the fact that to get the cowlick site to align with a shot from the sixth-floor window, Canning found it necessary to move JFK nearly 2 feet to the left, almost to the middle of the seat (HSCA exhibit F-138)--yet in his SBT trajectory diagram, Canning put JFK flush against the right side of the limo (HSCA exhibit F-144).
5. Among many other evasions, I noticed you ducked my question about what fragments could have caused the windshield and chrome damage. The two fragments found in the limo are CE 567 and CE 569. CE 567 was found on the middle-front seat, while CE 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the driver's seat. Do you see the problem? Think about how much velocity the fragments would have needed to dent the chrome and crack the windshield, and then think about how those fragments could have ended up on the floor to the right of the driver's seat and on the middle seat. Think about it.
6. You were obviously unaware of the fact that for years WC apologists denied that the chrome dent occurred during the shooting. In fact, a few of the worst WC apologists still make this claim. SS chief James Rowley falsely asserted that the chrome dent was made during "routine maintenance" in November 1961. The WC pretended there was doubt about whether the chrome dent happened during the shooting, but admitted that FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier believed the dent was made by a fragment traveling at a "fairly high velocity."
Rowley's lie about the chrome dent was refuted, and any alleged "doubt" that the dent was made during the shooting was removed, when photographic evidence was found that proved that the chrome topping was undented before the assassination.
7. What fragment from JFK's head could have dented the back of the rearview mirror and ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor right beside the right side of the driver's seat? To repeat, we're talking about the back of the rearview mirror, not the side or the front, but the back. That fragment must have ricocheted off the windshield and then struck the back of the mirror. Now, how on this planet could a bullet that bounced off the windshield and hit the back of the mirror have ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor to the right of the driver's seat? Think about that.
8. I notice you declined to explain what entry site could have caused the high fragment trail and why the autopsy doctors failed to mention this obvious fragment trail in the autopsy report.
9. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage in the brain, far below the cowlick area and with no connecting path or fragment trail to the much-higher cortical damage. Ignoring this unsolvable problem won't make it go away. We both know that your side cannot explain the subcortical damage.
10. Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict)
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html)
11. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet could have entered at the debunked cowlick entry site when the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site. If a bullet had entered there, the underlying cerebral cortex would have been severely damaged. This is one of the reasons that even your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site and why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has likewise rejected the site. The WC's three medical experts all adamantly rejected the cowlick site, by the way, as did the chief autopsy photographer who took photos of the rear head entry wound.
MTG-”To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.”
I think the basic point I grasp is the fact you are making all this nonsense up on the fly. That is why one thought never tracks from another. So, they could be fragments from LHO’s gun or not? Just now you have added a ricochet to the mix of improbabilities taking place with this one shot. All of this posting and gyrating because you can not accept the fact LHO fired two shots.
Let’s look at the MTG model as it was slowly dribbled out and then presented as fact;
Two shots
One with a frangible bullet
Two entrance wounds and no exit wounds
Bullet fragments that are the result of a stray shot hitting the pavement and depositing two fragments in the exact spot that later would be an entrance wound from LHO’s rifle shot.
Is there a concise explanation of what you believe took place with this shot. To date it is a rambling collection of odd beliefs that don’t necessarily track from one thought to the next. Seriously, two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. Can see why you are met with skepticism?
-------------------------------------
You are having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal?
You post an article from James DiEugenio as something someone should actually read. Really. I feel cheated out of the 5 seconds it took to hit the link and read his name and click off.
Pat Speer is uber-cautious? Since when? He has a great website but cautious would be another thing.
--------------------
The EOP site vs Cowlick site seems to be causing you great difficulty. Do you even think JFK was shot in the back of the head or not? I would think the WC had the body there in front of them and should have seen the hole. I am just guessing because you have scatter gunned approach to your thinking, but if this is about trajectory, Sturdivan explains what happens with the bullet you really need to read his testimony.
We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)
OMG, 16 surfaces that sounds like a lot, what empirical proof do you have that each of these spattered surfaces adds up to be more than 1 to 2 ounces of brains, did anybody collect and/or describe the chunk sizes or are you as usual guessing?
This lower quality Zapruder film GIF shows a mist of exploding matter and this alone would reach quite a lot of varying surfaces.
I don't know if you counted the inside of Kennedy's limo windshield as one of the surfaces but what is there is quite small!
JohnM
This is supposed to be your reply to the points I made? You either lack the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence being presented to you or else you are pretending that you don't understand them. This is the only thing I can conclude from your reply. I have put the facts before you in the simplest language I can muster, but you still either just don't grasp them or else you are purposely (and embarrassingly) pretending you don't get them. Let me ask some questions:
What in the world could lead to believe that the EOP site vs. the cowlick site is causing me "great difficulty"? What "great difficulty" are you talking about?
How could you not have grasped by now that I have said repeatedly that JFK was hit in the back of the head and that the bullet entered at the EOP site? How could have you failed to grasp this point by now?
How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?
As I think I've made quite clear, I posit one shot to the EOP and one shot to the right temple. These two entry points explain the cortical damage, the subcortical damage, and the high fragment trail. (I haven't spent much time on the exit points in this thread, but I accept as accurate the dozens of accounts of a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. This was the exit point for the right-temple shot. I believe that the EOP shot possibly did not leave the skull but that the bullet material from this shot was removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne. This would explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the skull x-rays.)
Regarding Sturdivan's testimony, why did you ignore the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now and as has been known for years, Sturdivan was never shown the original/unenhanced skull x-rays but only the enhanced ones before he testified? Do you not understand that because Sturdivan had not seen the unenhanced originals before he testified, he was unaware of the huge cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region?
Have you read Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, in which he explains in some detail why the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment, in which he explains that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments in the outer table as they penetrate skulls, and in which he repudiates the cowlick entry site?
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?
Will you ever try to explain how a bullet that entered at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage far below the site while also causing the cortical damage, given the fact that there is no connection of any kind between them? There's no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing that connects that cortical damage and the subcortical damage. If only one bullet entered the skull, what caused the subcortical damage?
Why do you say that Pat Speer is not uber cautious? Are you aware that most other researchers regard him as being extremely cautious, and that many WC apologists cite his hyper-cautious research on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays?
Will you ever try to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? The trail is above the cowlick site and does not extend to/from it. What entry site could have caused that trail?
Are you ever going to explain the origin of the two back-of-head fragments? I notice this is another issue you ducked. Since FMJ bullets do not and cannot deposit fragments, especially not from their cross section, on the outer table or scalp when they penetrate skulls, where did those fragments come from?
Speaking of those two back-of-head fragments, are you ever going to identify the entry site with which they can be associated? (I'll save you some time: there isn't one.)
Given that I talked about the cracks in the windshield and the chrome dent, what could have led you to conclude that I am "having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal"? That's just baffling. It's as if you only understand half of the words I'm using or something. Is the problem that your brain simply cannot process any information that contradicts your version of the shooting?
Why did you decline to explain how a bullet fragment that ricocheted off the windshield and dented the back of the rearview mirror could have ended up on the middle seat or on the floor on the right side of the driver's seat? How could that have worked? How could that have happened?
Why did you decline to explain why Canning did not even try to align the chrome dent with the headshot trajectory?
Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?
What about Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on NAA and the JFK case? I notice you said nothing about it.
What about the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Wexler study on NAA and the JFK case? (Dr. Aguilar discusses it at length in his article.) Here's an article on the study in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?
Any chance you will ever spell what you believe took place on the head shot? It is extremely hard to grasp the idea here when you are all over the board about what took place. Two shooters then not two shooters, Frangible bullets then not frangible bullets, a shot from behind and the front and then not a shot from the front, two entrance wounds and then not two entrance wounds.
I guess your two shooters model is dead in the water now? It appears reality seems to be creeping into your theory. It appears you have decided that the WC assessment of the head shot near the EOP is better than the HSCA’s cowlick sight. If you no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets is part of your theory, this is progress. Welcome to the reality that Oswald did it alone.
MTG __”Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:”
The NAA was never debunked by anyone let alone DiEuginio. Maybe you should actually read the Tobin report. The Tobin report is actually a waste of time and proved nothing. Why are all of your ideas nothing but an outgrowth of someone else’s opinion? Maybe that is why you are unable to sort this issue out, you do not think for yourself.
You answered your own questions about the chrome and window damage and what happened to the fragments. Some remained in the car, some did not but they obviously went forward because the lone shot was from behind. Maybe you should explain what you think should have happened with the fragments. You do understand they are just fragments splintered off a bullet? Your shot from the front looks to be impossible with the fragments hitting in front of JFK. I suppose that would explain your reluctance to fully explain your theory.
MTG--”Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?"
I have read a few of his ramblings. I will not waste 1 more second of my time reading about something DiEugenio thinks. If it so important for you to repeat what he vomits out of his mouth feel free to quote him. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to verbalize that nonsense.
MTG--”Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show the entire brain missing virtually no tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?”
Once again you are going on about how much of the brain is missing. Why is that such a focal point? Everyone knows what happened to it. Do you actually think they substituted another brain to confuse you and then for what reason? Frame Z313 says it all does it not?
MTG--”A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.”
You really need to have a picture drawing of why there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome damage than the trajectory for the shot that hit JFK? They are at least 10 feet apart.
Why did he state it? The fragments possibly could have followed the same trajectory, but they didn’t, and he is just stating that fact. Their dispersion was random not necessarily linear. Actually, why do you need this explained for you to understand. There is 10 to 15 feet difference in impact points. It can only be two different trajectories.
Good luck with the mysterious two bullet fragments that aren’t really bullet fragments but were supposedly deposited by a ricochet from a shot that never happened. The experts obviously had a hard time explaining it in the context that the fragments came from a bullet when in reality they did not. Sorry but the hard cold reality of it is they hold no significance.
The problem is that you either lack the mental capacity to understand plain English or you are dishonestly and embarrassingly ignoring my plain English because you have no credible answer for my arguments.
When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?
Translation: You can't explain the compelling evidence against the cowlick site and for the EOP site. You prefer not to address the point that your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has repudiated the cowlick site, nor do you prefer to deal with his reasons for doing so.
You can't be so mentally challenged as to actually believe that I "no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets [sic]." Do you just hope that no one will read my replies and will not see that you either must be borderline retarded or are lying through your teeth to be making such a claim?
Again, when have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?
And when have I even implied that frangible ammo was not involved? I've repeatedly discussed the evidence that the frontal headshot bullet was a frangible bullet. See, for example, my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which I have cited many times in this forum:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view)
If you actually believe this, then you can't read, assuming you actually read "the Tobin report"--i.e., the Spiegelman-Tobin-James study. Their study proved that the bullet fragments could have come from three or more and as many as five separate bullets, and they found several serious errors in Guinn's assumptions. How did you miss this central finding? Veteran journalist John Solomon, whose article on the study I cited and linked in my previous reply to you, did not miss it:
----------------------------------------
They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines))
----------------------------------------
Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.
Translation: You're going to keep ducking the question of how the fragment that dented the back of the rearview mirror could have been either of the fragments that were found in the front of the limo. You're going to keep ducking the problem posed by the chrome dent. Again, why do you suppose that Rowley lied about the chrome dent and claimed it was made before the assassination during "routine maintenance"? Why? Why do you suppose the WC pretended there was doubt about when the chrome dent occurred? Why would they have lied about this if it posed no problem?
You see, I'm still trying to get you to explain your theory about the chrome damage, the window damage, and the rearview mirror damage. So far, your "theory" is nothing but your blind acceptance of what the WC claimed about the damage and the fragments, with no attempt on your part to explain the problems with the WC's scenario for the damage and the fragments.
The WC did not even mention the damage to the back of the rearview mirror, much less try to explain it. Why do you suppose that was?
Translation: You're still refusing to prove your claim that DiEugenio in any way misrepresents the Randich-Grant NAA study.
Do you realize that after the Randich-Grant study was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, even G. Robert Blakey, who had ardently defended and cited Guinn's NAA research for the HSCA, concluded that the Guinn's NAA research was "junk science"?
Have you read the Randich-Grant study, "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives"? Are you aware that it proves that, contrary to what Guinn claimed, WCC MC lead does not "differ sharply" from typical bullet leads. Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn supported his bogus claim by comparing WCC MC lead to the lead from unjacketed handgun rounds? Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn's sampling number was far too small to justify his sweeping assertion about the fragments and WCC MC ammo?
Allow me to quote from the Journal of Forensic Sciences abstract of the Randich-Grant study:
----------------------------------------
Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x))
----------------------------------------
Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.
Vincent Bugliosi is spinning in his grave! Ignoring the skull x-rays, Bugliosi gleefully pointed out that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue, and he cited this fact as his basis for rejecting all the accounts of the eyewitnesses who reported that a large portion of JFK's brain was missing.
However, as I've noted previously, a number of medical experts, from Dr. Hodges to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Chesser, have observed that the autopsy skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this with OD measurements.
Let me try to put this in grade-school terms: Suppose you had a set of photos and a set of x-rays that supposedly showed the same injured hand. Suppose that the photos showed two broken fingers but showed the fingers otherwise intact except for a small cut with a small amount of skin missing. But, suppose that the x-rays showed an entire finger missing. Would anyone in their right mind accept the claim that the photos and the x-rays showed the same hand?
HUH? I guess you forgot, or were hoping that I would forget, that Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the headshot trajectory. He admitted this after being specifically asked about it, remember? He didn't use your silly argument that we should not expect fragment damage and the headshot trajectory to align.
Shall we apply your silly argument to the conflicting theories of Moore, Posner, and Holland regarding the fragment that hit the Tague curb?
You are ducking and dodging so much that you've ended up in La La Land. Let's start with the fact that every expert who has examined the skull x-rays has noted that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the back of the head in the same vertical position as the 6.5 mm object. It is within the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Even Sturdivan has acknowledged this fact. One problem posed by this small fragment, of course, is that it cannot be the lateral view, or the partner image, of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-rays. Nobody but nobody denies that this small bullet fragment is within the AP x-ray's image of the 6.5 mm object. Nobody.
Then, let's graduate to the fact that HSCA radiology consultant Dr. G. M. McDonnel detected an even smaller back-of-head fragment between the galea and the outer table, 1 cm below the cowlick site, and slightly to the left of the small fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object. No expert has denied the existence of the McDonnel fragment.
Next, let's graduate to the fact that Dr. Mantik has confirmed the existence of both of these fragments with multiple OD measurements. Using high magnification, he was even able to determine the size of the small back-of-head fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object (6.3 x 2.5 mm).
A "ricochet from a shot that never happened"? Uh, even Gerald Posner agrees that the five witnesses who described seeing a bullet strike the pavement near the limo are credible.
The problem is that since you are chained down by the lone-gunman theory, you can't offer a credible explanation for the pavement strike. Posner tries to explain it with his whacky tree-limb-collision theory where an FMJ bullet supposedly split apart after hitting one of the oak tree's branches and then sent one fragment to strike the pavement and another fragment to strike the Tague curb over 400 feet away with enough force to send a chip of concrete streaking toward Tague.
There's really no "mystery" and really nothing "mysterious" about the two back-of-head fragments, unless one is chained down by the absurd lone-gunman theory and only has three shots to account for every wound, every fragment, every pavement strike, every curb strike, and every other miss (the Aldredge bullet strike, the Foster-Walthers bullet strike, the deformed bullet found in the limo and seen by Dr. James Young, etc.).
We've known for years that even the Clark Panel privately believed that the back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays was a ricochet fragment.
Finally, I notice that you ignored the issues of the high fragment trail and the cortical and subcortical damage. Again, are you ever going to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? And are you ever going to explain how a single bullet could have caused two different and unconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the cortical damage high in the brain and the subcortical damage much lower in the brain?
KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here.
SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)
Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right
in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81)
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely; Part of his brain was gone. . . .
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745)
You are trying to have it both ways.
MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”
MTG-” When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?”
How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds.
Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds.
JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear.
The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.
I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.
Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.
Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.
You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.
Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).
And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).
What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.
LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.
If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.
Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.
How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?
How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?
How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?
How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?
How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?
How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?
How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)
How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?
Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?
Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)
Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).
Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?
Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?
Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).
Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."
Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).
How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?
How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?
1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!
2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?
3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.
4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.
The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty
5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.
6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.
I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.
As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.
The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm JohnM
Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.
When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?
Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.
LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?
When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?
That's a joke, right?
Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?
If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?
You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.
Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.
Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)
More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.
Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf
I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.
Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:
------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.
Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.
But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)
If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.
1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.
2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.
3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.
4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.
5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)
Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.
For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------
It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.
Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?
It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.
You can't be serious?
I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!
Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.
Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....
Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.
Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!
Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.
Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder!
Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!
The fragmentation in the slide [the x-ray slide] was so severe that one had to wonder if it was a so-called dum-dum bullet [hollow-point bullet] as opposed to the kind which was found on the floor [on the floor of JFK's limo]. (Lansing State Journal, 16 September 1977, p. 10, see https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/reviewing-the-autopsy-x-rays/ (https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/reviewing-the-autopsy-x-rays/), starting at 22:49)
. . . invented an exposure meter that reduced the need for repeated x-rays, developed an automatic timer to shut off x-ray exposure the moment the film had been properly exposed, and significantly improved picture quality so that fewer x-rays were required of patients. His landmark studies on image formation culminated in such technological triumphs as incorporating television monitors, physiologic optics, and computer analysis in radiologic science. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/about/history/heroes-of-public-health/russell-e-morgan-md (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/about/history/heroes-of-public-health/russell-e-morgan-md))
You never hear WC apologists talk about the fact that Dr. Russell Morgan, one of the most eminent radiologists in his day and the only radiologist on the four-member Clark Panel, expressed doubts about the kind of ammo that hit JFK's head and said that the bullet may have been a dumdum bullet (aka hollow-point bullet). In September 1977, Morgan said,
Dr. Morgan added that he would be willing to participate in the HSCA investigation.
As many scholars have noted, not one of the FMJ bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests broke into dozens of fragments. Similarly, not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test broke into numerous fragments. FMJ bullets fired from medium-velocity or low-velocity rifles, such as the alleged murder weapon, will rarely if ever break into numerous fragments (see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing)).
FYI, Dr. Morgan was responsible for the most important advances in the 20th century in the quality, safety and application of x-ray technology. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health website notes that Dr. Morgan
HUH? Can you read? How many times have I explained that in Z353 Summers' left leg is splayed forward and that his left foot is clearly extended beyond his right foot? That's the whole point, because 56 thousandths of a second later, or just 1/18th/second later, his left foreleg is bent noticeably backward and his left foot is now directly above his right foot! Moreover, by Z356, just 1/6th/second later at Z33, his legs, arms, and feet are in an obviously different position than they are in Z353.
This is at least the third time you have ducked and dodged these self-evident, readily observable facts. I mean, sheesh, do you somehow think that people won't notice your bald-faced evasion and dissembling on this issue?
Folks, to get an idea of John Mytton's evasion and misrepresentation on this issue, read my segment on Summers' movements in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link).
Uh-oh, here we go again.
Like your bizarre responses above, in regards to Zapruder alteration, where you keep using people who are completely unqualified to discuss film alteration, here you quote a guy who seems to be good at taking X-Rays(Big Deal) and he's obviously discussing a topic which is way beyond his paygrade, "Wound Ballistics" and then you disturbingly wonder why he's rarely discussed, well, Duh!
Yet, you are the one who constantly ignores Experts who are actually qualified and are real life Scholars in their chosen fields? Go figure??
Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who you like to dismiss, is the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch and performed practical recreations of Kennedy's head wound, why don't you quote this guy? Oh that's right you have a vested interest in supporting anything but.
Dr. Alfred G. Olivier while using human skulls recreated the shot into the back of Kennedy's head and guess what "Einstein", the bullet separated into two pieces and closely resembled the recovered bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo. I bet your guy who was seemingly good at taking X-Rays didn't do this experiment but instead postulated his dumb dumdum bullet theory without considering the entirety of the physical evidence.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
1. The 2 larger test bullet fragments recovered by Dr. Oliver.
2. The 2 larger bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's Limo
And contrary to the belief of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, Dr. Oliver showed that the bullet after penetrating a human skull broke up into a shower of smaller lead fragments.
Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
-------snip------
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
And just to show you how inadequate your research really is, here's Dr. John Lattimer who also did the same experiment and lo and behold his Carcano Bullet also broke up into two larger fragments.
So Griffith, instead of sweeping the very depths of the sewers in your search for unqualified anybody's that dispute the official findings of the many qualified Experts of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and etc. etc., perhaps you better start embracing these fine upstanding Pillars of Society who have the words TRUTH and Justice emblazoned as their middle names! JohnM
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:What I said is exactly what Riley did, and it can be seen simply by inspecting his figure. Your appeals to the lambda's location are useless, since the lambda isn't visible in the TotH photos. Only the distance from the rear of the head to the wound is important here, because it's the only common reference point available in the photo.
That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.
Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.
I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.
Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.The "red spot" is concave. A spot of blood would not be. Also:
Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos,
as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.It's that Rockefeller Commission report that you can't quote in context, innit? In the RC interviews and testimony, Hodges agreed with Spitz, who placed the wound high.
So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?Dream on, Sunshine
Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.In Finck's correspondence to Blumberg, he reiterates the autopsy report's measurements for the back wound, noting that those were his measurements. But when it came to the BOH wound, he notably omitted the autopsy report's description of the wound location, opting instead for much more generalized, non specific language. This should tell you that he either didn't agree with the location in the AR or he wasn't confident enough in his own observations to be more specific. The autopsy report's own description of the wound location, 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP, should tell you right off the bat that they didn't actually bother to measure it's location, or make much note of it's position. Otherwise, the AR would be much more specific on that matter and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.HB&F have been getting pelted hard from both sides of the aisle since the 60's, and definitely since the 70's, so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about here.
And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.I never actually claimed that the entire skull was pulled apart, so I'm also not sure what you're talking about. I wonder if you know what you're talking about at this point.
Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.When M L Fackler was researching the effects of 5.56x45 bullets breaking up after impact, he found that the original M193 bullets created a temporary cavity about 20-25cm across and a permanent cavity about 15-20cm wide. An adult male cranium is about 14cm, max, inside-to-inside along the sagittal axis. An M193 bullet has about 1/3 the mass and 70% of the muzzle energy of a 6.5mm Carcano round. Areas of the brain not directly affected by the tearing in the creation of the main wound channel are still subject to being crushed, torqued, and smashed when they were hammered into the inside of the skull by intense cavitation forces, causing blunt force trauma, including lacerations. There should be no question, then, that a 6.5mm would cause damage many centimeters from the bullet path. Period.
The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.
Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage.
Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:And Dr Riley's recognized expertise in gunshot wounds is.....?
----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.
The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .
However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.
First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .
An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------
You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.
You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.Do we actually "know" this? Last I checked, this is what Menninger said Donohue said that Fisher said it. Did Fisher really say that, or did Donohue/Menninger just hear what they wanted to hear?
We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.
Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:Since I haven't claimed that any bullet broke up into "circular slices," this must be another of your diversions into the realm of Beside the Point.
---------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------
Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------
LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.So, instead of actually bothering to come up with a single argument against what I proposed, you just hide behind flatulent dollops of empty attempts at ridicule. Also, there is no good reason to believe that the fragment penetrated into the inner table; from the x-rays we have, it could simply be lying against the outer table without having poked into it at all.
You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.
This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.I didn't claim that any fragment was "deposited" in either the outer or inner tables. It's like you keep arguing in your head with some alternate version of yourself instead of dealing with what I've said.
It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve.
MT: Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials?That sentence is a great example of you begging the question. The rest of your reply is simply a lame attempt to avoid answering my question by changing the subject using as much whargrrrbl as you can muster.
HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.
I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.That's right. Boswell remembered something like that happening, but Humes and Finck didn't remember it that way. The rest is you trying to shove a proverbial square peg into a proverbial round hole, kinky lad you. For contemporaneous reference, The Sibert+O'Neill report, the autopsy report, and Finck's correspondence to Blumberg say that the late-arriving fragment completed the exit, not the entry (and put the entry at the rear of the cranium). BTW, you might want to consider that a bullet passing through the skull can result in partial cratering. Sometimes, you even get what's called a "keyhole", where there are two (roughly) half-craters, one facing inside and one facing outside. Each crater occupying it's own half of the circumference. And, again, Humes and Boswell had partially disassembled the remaining skull to remove the brain. Finck may not have seen the entire wound when it was pointed out to him.
This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.If it's clown material, then it should be right up your alley, Bozo.
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?The autopsy report really isn't very specific about the secondary characteristics shown in the x-rays, including the location of the minor fragments. I suspect that this is because Humes, Boswell and Finck no longer had access to the x-rays, and were relying on their memory, rather than some grand subversion. Their omission then becomes an empty canvas upon which the easily excitable can scrawl their own brightly-colored pictures in finger-paint.
I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.Oh, I'm nowhere near as embarrassed as you really ought to be, but just don't have the sense to.
And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."It means to assume the conclusion to be argued as a given, a priori. You do it every time you assert something beginning "obviously...." without providing any other argument or evidence. Like Robert Harris, you do that quite a bit.
MG: That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.
Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.
I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.
What I said is exactly what Riley did, and it can be seen simply by inspecting his figure. Your appeals to the lambda's location are useless, since the lambda isn't visible in the TotH photos. Only the distance from the rear of the head to the wound is important here, because it's the only common reference point available in the photo.
The "red spot" is concave. A spot of blood would not be.
Also: The BOH photos were shot to center on the "red spot." There is a ruler placed right next to the "red spot." The photos show that someone parted the hair away from the "red spot."
That is, everything about the BOH photos indicate that they were taken specifically to document the "red spot." They wouldn't have done that if it was just a "spot of blood."
I have the timeless reality captured in the photos themselves on my side. You only have the faded memories of a old man trying to remember something he saw 35 years before.
It's that Rockefeller Commission report that you can't quote in context, innit? In the RC interviews and testimony, Hodges agreed with Spitz, who placed the wound high.
MG: So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?
Dream on, Sunshine
In Finck's correspondence to Blumberg, he reiterates the autopsy report's measurements for the back wound, noting that those were his measurements. But when it came to the BOH wound, he notably omitted the autopsy report's description of the wound location, opting instead for much more generalized, non specific language. This should tell you that he either didn't agree with the location in the AR or he wasn't confident enough in his own observations to be more specific. The autopsy report's own description of the wound location, 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP, should tell you right off the bat that they didn't actually bother to measure it's location, or make much note of it's position. Otherwise, the AR would be much more specific on that matter and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The Blumberg letters are important in that this is the only point where Finck does not have to defend the autopsy report in public, and he has the luxury of allowing himself to freely relate his experience.
You will, do doubt, bring up that Finck put the wound in what he called the "occipital bone" and the "occipital region." But "occiput" only means "the back part of the head or skull" (per Mirriam-Webster), and some point of "occipital bone" or "occipital region" may not actually lie within the bone called the occipital bone. You can, of course, claim that Finck would have seen the suture lines dividing the different cranial bones; however, the surface of the skull is covered by adhering soft tissue like the periosteum, the loose areolar tissue and the various interior membranes which obscure the exact surface of the bone and hide the sutures as any meaningful guidepost.
MG: It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.
HB&F have been getting pelted hard from both sides of the aisle since the 60's, and definitely since the 70's, so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about here.
I never actually claimed that the entire skull was pulled apart, so I'm also not sure what you're talking about. I wonder if you know what you're talking about at this point.
When M L Fackler was researching the effects of 5.56x45 bullets breaking up after impact, he found that the original M193 bullets created a temporary cavity about 20-25cm across and a permanent cavity about 15-20cm wide. An adult male cranium is about 14cm, max, inside-to-inside along the sagittal axis. An M193 bullet has about 1/3 the mass and 70% of the muzzle energy of a 6.5mm Carcano round. Areas of the brain not directly affected by the tearing in the creation of the main wound channel are still subject to being crushed, torqued, and smashed when they were hammered into the inside of the skull by intense cavitation forces, causing blunt force trauma, including lacerations. There should be no question, then, that a 6.5mm would cause damage many centimeters from the bullet path. Period.
And Dr Riley's recognized expertise in gunshot wounds is.....?
Ditto with Mantik.
Do we actually "know" this? Last I checked, this is what Menninger said Donohue said that Fisher said it. Did Fisher really say that, or did Donohue/Menninger just hear what they wanted to hear?
Since I haven't claimed that any bullet broke up into "circular slices," this must be another of your diversions into the realm of Beside the Point.
MG: LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd. You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.
So, instead of actually bothering to come up with a single argument against what I proposed
, you just hide behind flatulent dollops of empty attempts at ridicule. Also, there is no good reason to believe that the fragment penetrated into the inner table; from the x-rays we have, it could simply be lying against the outer table without having poked into it at all.
I didn't claim that any fragment was "deposited" in either the outer or inner tables. It's like you keep arguing in your head with some alternate version of yourself instead of dealing with what I've said.
Quote from: Mitch Todd on December 23, 2023, 12:39:43 AM
Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?
That sentence is a great example of you begging the question. The rest of your reply is simply a lame attempt to avoid answering my question by changing the subject using as much whargrrrbl as you can muster.
That's right. Boswell remembered something like that happening, but Humes and Finck didn't remember it that way. The rest is you trying to shove a proverbial square peg into a proverbial round hole, kinky lad you. For contemporaneous reference, The Sibert+O'Neill report, the autopsy report, and Finck's correspondence to Blumberg say that the late-arriving fragment completed the exit, not the entry (and put the entry at the rear of the cranium). BTW, you might want to consider that a bullet passing through the skull can result in partial cratering. Sometimes, you even get what's called a "keyhole", where there are two (roughly) half-craters, one facing inside and one facing outside. Each crater occupying it's own half of the circumference. And, again, Humes and Boswell had partially disassembled the remaining skull to remove the brain. Finck may not have seen the entire wound when it was pointed out to him.
If it's clown material, then it should be right up your alley, Bozo.
The autopsy report really isn't very specific about the secondary characteristics shown in the x-rays, including the location of the minor fragments. I suspect that this is because Humes, Boswell and Finck no longer had access to the x-rays, and were relying on their memory, rather than some grand subversion. Their omission then becomes an empty canvas upon which the easily excitable can scrawl their own brightly-colored pictures in finger-paint.
MG: No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?
Of these "dozen's of scholars" you mention, how many actually have any real demonstrated and accepted expertise in gunshot wounds? How many are simply medical dilettantes, swimming unsupervised well out of their own specialties? How many are just wild-eyed dorks who have a conclusion they don't know how to prove, and simple bend reality to make their conjecture fit? I'll bet that the members of the first category numbers zero, or something very close to it. The rest are a dime a dozen.
Oh, I'm nowhere near as embarrassed as you really ought to be, but just don't have the sense to.
It means to assume the conclusion to be argued as a given, a priori. You do it every time you assert something beginning "obviously...." without providing any other argument or evidence. Like Robert Harris, you do that quite a bit.