JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on October 08, 2020, 07:07:08 PM
-
The full title of the article is "The Suspicious 6.5 mm 'Fragment': Further Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." Here's the link:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.pdf
This is a vastly revised and expanded version of my old article on the 6.5 mm object in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
The 6.5 mm object is clear, compelling proof that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. The article explains why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray and the relationship between the object and the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays and the two conflicting sites for the rear head entry wound.
The article also discusses the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays, and that the fragment trail that does appear on the x-rays is not mentioned in the autopsy report.
-
The full title of the article is "The Suspicious 6.5 mm 'Fragment': Further Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." Here's the link:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.pdf
This is a vastly revised and expanded version of my old article on the 6.5 mm object in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
The 6.5 mm object is clear, compelling proof that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. The article explains why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray and the relationship between the object and the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays and the two conflicting sites for the rear head entry wound.
The article also discusses the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays, and that the fragment trail that does appear on the x-rays is not mentioned in the autopsy report.
EOP?
Cowlick?
And the answer is...both!
It's pretty simple.
Your line about JFK needing to be " slumped forward" - I paraphrase - explains it all.
-
EOP?
Cowlick?
And the answer is...both!
It's pretty simple.
Your line about JFK needing to be " slumped forward" - I paraphrase - explains it all.
Why the need to assume a “slumped forward” position? Either the EOP or the Cowlick can be hit from the TSBD sniper’s nest.
The need for a “slumped forward” position is only needed if one does not understand that bullet fragments do not always follow a straight path through the body. Indeed, in general, bullet fragments follow a curved path. This is something any true ballistic expert can tell you. And has clearly demonstrated many times with photographs of ballistic gel blocks, after they have been shot with an embedded bone target, resulting in clearly visible curved paths in the ballistic blocks formed by the resulting fragments.
But this was something that was not understood by the HSCA. Hence, their totally unnecessary “slumped forward” hypothesis. To allow a straight line from the TSBD sniper’s nest, through the cowlick entry wound that they “deduced”, which allowed a straight-line path through the exit wound.
Of course, this explanation is no good. It goes against what is seen in the Zapruder film. And because of where the fragments struck windshield frame and windshield, which are not anywhere near this straight line. And is totally unnecessary because a bullet could strike either the EOP or cowlick, follow a curved path, exit the exit wound and head straight for the windshield frame or windshield on slightly diverting paths. It is just more plausible if the bullet struck the EOP. The resulting curve is less extreme and simpler than the curve that would correspond to the cowlick entry.
But, CTers will happily continue to site this gaff by the HSCA even though this “slumped forward” hypothesis has never been a leading contender among LNers. But CTers will continue to pretend that it has been and still is.
-
Mr Elliot: the " slumped forward" position is supported by the evidence, especially the autopsy, and the ballistics. Also, the Z film.
As an aside, I am not a " conspiracy theorist", thank you.
-
Mr Elliot: the " slumped forward" position is supported by the evidence, especially the autopsy, and the ballistics. Also, the Z film.
As an aside, I am not a " conspiracy theorist", thank you.
My apology. I assumed you were referring to the extreme slump forward position of one of the HSCA diagrams. Yes, Frame 312 does show a slight lean forward.
-
My apology. I assumed you were referring to the extreme slump forward position of one of the HSCA diagrams. Yes, Frame 312 does show a slight lean forward.
Mr Elliot: more slumping after that.
-
Mr Elliot: more slumping after that.
Hi John,
just out of interest, is this the shot that hits JFK at the base of his neck, exits the front of his skull and hits Connally on a downward trajectory?
-
Hi John,
just out of interest, is this the shot that hits JFK at the base of his neck, exits the front of his skull and hits Connally on a downward trajectory?
Mr O'meara: Yes. The third shot, right in front of Mr Altgens, who mentions said shot in his testimony. Long after Z312.
Mr Altgens is quite visible in the Zapruder film, standing on the grass.
Odd, isn't it, that his pictures were a big part of the Warren investigation, yet Mr Altgens was called to testify only after the issue of his non-appearance was raised in the press.
His testimony is quite informative, and readily available on the web. Enjoy!
-
Mr O'meara: Yes. The third shot, right in front of Mr Altgens, who mentions said shot in his testimony. Long after Z312.
Mr Altgens is quite visible in the Zapruder film, standing on the grass.
Odd, isn't it, that his pictures were a big part of the Warren investigation, yet Mr Altgens was called to testify only after the issue of his non-appearance was raised in the press.
His testimony is quite informative, and readily available on the web. Enjoy!
Yeah, you've mentioned the Altgens testimony elsewhere and I was quite confused then:
"Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
Altgens is absolutely adamant that there was no shot after the headshot. You're right though, his testimony is quite informative.
Maybe have a little read through it yourself.
It's available online.
Enjoy.
-
Why the need to assume a “slumped forward” position? Either the EOP or the Cowlick can be hit from the TSBD sniper’s nest.
The need for a “slumped forward” position is only needed if one does not understand that bullet fragments do not always follow a straight path through the body. Indeed, in general, bullet fragments follow a curved path. This is something any true ballistic expert can tell you. And has clearly demonstrated many times with photographs of ballistic gel blocks, after they have been shot with an embedded bone target, resulting in clearly visible curved paths in the ballistic blocks formed by the resulting fragments.
But this was something that was not understood by the HSCA. Hence, their totally unnecessary “slumped forward” hypothesis. To allow a straight line from the TSBD sniper’s nest, through the cowlick entry wound that they “deduced”, which allowed a straight-line path through the exit wound.
Of course, this explanation is no good. It goes against what is seen in the Zapruder film. And because of where the fragments struck windshield frame and windshield, which are not anywhere near this straight line. And is totally unnecessary because a bullet could strike either the EOP or cowlick, follow a curved path, exit the exit wound and head straight for the windshield frame or windshield on slightly diverting paths. It is just more plausible if the bullet struck the EOP. The resulting curve is less extreme and simpler than the curve that would correspond to the cowlick entry.
But, CTers will happily continue to site this gaff by the HSCA even though this “slumped forward” hypothesis has never been a leading contender among LNers. But CTers will continue to pretend that it has been and still is.
More silly drivel from our professional conspiracy-theory denier. For the sake of others, a few facts:
* Bullets do not make sharp turns in soft tissue. They veer, but they do not make sharp turns. Ballistics tests films showing bullets traveling through simulated soft tissue prove this. No bullet in any ballistics tests has veered to the degree required by the EOP-entry-site trajectory.
* A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the EOP at a downward angle of 16 degrees. After penetrating the skull at a 16-degree downward angle, there is no way on this planet that the bullet could have made the exit wound claimed by the WC and the HSCA. As ballistics expert Howard Donahue noticed long ago, a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and entering the skull at the EOP would have exited far below the right-front parietal bone.
* A bullet entering just above the EOP could not have created the fragment trail seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. That fragment trail has been noted by numerous forensic pathologists and radiologists, even by lone-gunman theorist Dr. John Lattimer, who was not a pathologist. As I document in my article, that fragment trail is impossible to align with the trajectory of a bullet entering the EOP.
* Oddly enough, but not surprisingly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail. The only fragment trail it describes is one running from just above the EOP to the right supraorbital ridge, i.e., just above the right eye.
* The WC realized the trajectory problem with the EOP entry site, and so they published a diagram showing Kennedy leaning far forward. Only a marked forward lean creates a plausible bullet trajectory from the EOP to the right-front parietal area. The problem is that the Zapruder film refutes this idea. The film shows JFK leaning forward, but not nearly to the degree required to make the EOP-to-right-eye trajectory work.
* The small bullet fragment and the four tiny bullet fragments near it on the back of the head could not have come from an FMJ bullet, regardless of which entry site you accept. Any ballistics expert or forensic pathologist will tell you that FMJ bullets do no deposit cross-section fragments on the outer table of the skull when they strike skull, and forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet has done so.
-
Yeah, you've mentioned the Altgens testimony elsewhere and I was quite confused then:
"Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
Altgens is absolutely adamant that there was no shot after the headshot. You're right though, his testimony is quite informative.
Maybe have a little read through it yourself.
It's available online.
Enjoy.
Yes, the final headshot, 20 ft from Mr Altgens.
-
Yes, the final headshot, 20 ft from Mr Altgens.
?? ?? ??
Are you saying Altgens is talking about another headshot " Long after Z312."??
He is clearly talking about the headshot at z312 but you seem to be suggesting there's another headshot not shown by Zapruder.
Is Altgens witnessing this made-up headshot as he takes his picture of Clint Hill getting on the back of the limo?
-
?? ?? ??
Are you saying Altgens is talking about another headshot " Long after Z312."??
He is clearly talking about the headshot at z312 but you seem to be suggesting there's another headshot not shown by Zapruder.
Is Altgens witnessing this made-up headshot as he takes his picture of Clint Hill getting on the back of the limo?
Speaking of the Altgens photo, in that photo, motorcycle officer Chaney is directly
abreast the limo, looking directly into the face of JFK, but no Z frame shows this.
Also, Altgens' precise location on Elm Street is a critical issue. Altgens testified that he was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. He had prefocused his camera to 15 feet focal length because he wanted a good close-up. Altgens was certain Kennedy was 15 feet away from him and had his camera almost up to his eye when the President was struck. Since the limousine was in the center lane on Elm Street, a 15 foot distance placed the last shot directly in front of him. Altgens' position can clearly be seen in the Zapruder frame 349 significantly west of Jean Hill/Mary Moorman and the limousine's position at frame 313.
Altgens was standing just east of the concrete steps and his statements support the testimony of Emmett Hudson who said the last shot hit Kennedy "in front of those steps." Hudson's testimony corroborates Altgens' position when he describes a man with a camera across Elm Street and shooting pictures "up toward those steps." A final shot occurring
in this area may be why Zapruder frames past frame 334 were not printed in the Warren Commission exhibits.
But how about we get back to the subject of the thread? The 6.5 mm object is hard evidence that the JFK autopsy x-rays have been altered.
-
Speaking of the Altgens photo, in that photo, motorcycle officer Chaney is directly
abreast the limo, looking directly into the face of JFK, but no Z frame shows this.
Also, Altgens' precise location on Elm Street is a critical issue. Altgens testified that he was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. He had prefocused his camera to 15 feet focal length because he wanted a good close-up. Altgens was certain Kennedy was 15 feet away from him and had his camera almost up to his eye when the President was struck. Since the limousine was in the center lane on Elm Street, a 15 foot distance placed the last shot directly in front of him. Altgens' position can clearly be seen in the Zapruder frame 349 significantly west of Jean Hill/Mary Moorman and the limousine's position at frame 313.
Altgens was standing just east of the concrete steps and his statements support the testimony of Emmett Hudson who said the last shot hit Kennedy "in front of those steps." Hudson's testimony corroborates Altgens' position when he describes a man with a camera across Elm Street and shooting pictures "up toward those steps." A final shot occurring
in this area may be why Zapruder frames past frame 334 were not printed in the Warren Commission exhibits.
But how about we get back to the subject of the thread? The 6.5 mm object is hard evidence that the JFK autopsy x-rays have been altered.
Mr Griffiths: thanks for your input.
You have explained - perfectly- the shot in front of Altgens. At (approximately) Z349.
Thanks.
-
?? ?? ??
Are you saying Altgens is talking about another headshot " Long after Z312."??
He is clearly talking about the headshot at z312 but you seem to be suggesting there's another headshot not shown by Zapruder.
Is Altgens witnessing this made-up headshot as he takes his picture of Clint Hill getting on the back of the limo?
Mr O'meara: see Mr Griffith's response above.
He took the words out of my mouth, as they say.
Why is it a " made up" headshot? Because you are/were unaware of it?
-
Mr Griffiths: thanks for your input.
You have explained - perfectly- the shot in front of Altgens. At (approximately) Z349.
Thanks.
??
The Altgens testimony is clearly referring to the headshot at z312.
The reason the headshot is 'made up' is because you've made it up with no corroborating evidence. At z349 Jackie Kennedy is blocking Altgen's view of Kennedy's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMDmqvkF/z349.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Just wanted to make this last point Michael but you're right, time to get back to the theme of this thread.
-
??
The Altgens testimony is clearly referring to the headshot at z312.
The reason the headshot is 'made up' is because you've made it up with no corroborating evidence. At z349 Jackie Kennedy is blocking Altgen's view of Kennedy's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMDmqvkF/z349.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Just wanted to make this last point Michael but you're right, time to get back to the theme of this thread.
Mr O: in Z344 we see Altgens with the camera " almost up to my eye", which he mentions in his testimony. Correlates with his refocusing to 15 feet.
Once you understand:
The West survey, which locates a third hit at 4+95, based on information provided by, yes, both the FBI and SS. ( that info was still published in the Warren Report)
The Warren Commission's initial choice not to call Mr Altgens as a witness.
The motivations of LBJ, who created the Warren Commission.
The motivations of the SS, who - except for Clint Hill - failed miserably in their task.
The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film.
and many other things to numerous to mention, you might actually " get it".
But as Vincent Salandria said, later in life, early critics of the Warren Report focused too much on the minutae of the assassination, and failed to see the big picture. Mr S included himself in this critique.
-
Mr O: in Z344 we see Altgens with the camera " almost up to my eye", which he mentions in his testimony. Correlates with his refocusing to 15 feet.
Once you understand:
The West survey, which locates a third hit at 4+95, based on information provided by, yes, both the FBI and SS. ( that info was still published in the Warren Report)
The Warren Commission's initial choice not to call Mr Altgens as a witness.
The motivations of LBJ, who created the Warren Commission.
The motivations of the SS, who - except for Clint Hill - failed miserably in their task.
The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film.
and many other things to numerous to mention, you might actually " get it".
But as Vincent Salandria said, later in life, early critics of the Warren Report focused too much on the minutae of the assassination, and failed to see the big picture. Mr S included himself in this critique.
What is it you're trying to say?
This just seems rambling and incoherent,
"The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film."!! WTF!
-
What is it you're trying to say?
This just seems rambling and incoherent,
"The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film."!! WTF!
Mr O: the actions of Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill in the Nix film, at the critical juncture I am referring to, do not all appear in the Z film. Has nothing to do with filming locations, cameras, etc.The films should be mirror images. They are not. Draw your own conclusions.
-
Mr O: the actions of Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill in the Nix film, at the critical juncture I am referring to, do not all appear in the Z film. Has nothing to do with filming locations, cameras, etc.The films should be mirror images. They are not. Draw your own conclusions.
You've completely lost me.
Will look into it and maybe start a new thread.
I'm sure Michael would like to get back to the theme of this one.
-
Mr: O: inasmuch as the topic of this thread is a contention that the x-rays have been altered, my mention of the second head shot, which explains why the x-rays are indeed, unaltered, is quite germane to the discussion.
Might want to remember this quote: " it was in the hairline". Sibert and O'Neill.
-
Mr: O: inasmuch as the topic of this thread is a contention that the x-rays have been altered, my mention of the second head shot, which explains why the x-rays are indeed, unaltered, is quite germane to the discussion.
Might want to remember this quote: " it was in the hairline". Sibert and O'Neill.
I missed the bit where your made up second head-shot explained why the x-rays are unaltered.
-
Mr: O: inasmuch as the topic of this thread is a contention that the x-rays have been altered, my mention of the second head shot, which explains why the x-rays are indeed, unaltered, is quite germane to the discussion. Might want to remember this quote: " it was in the hairline". Sibert and O'Neill.
It's not a "contention." It is an established fact, established by multiple sets of optical-density measurements done on the skull x-rays at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate the process that was used to place the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Have you even read the article on which this thread is based?
And the three ARRB medical experts unanimously agreed that the autopsy x-rays and photos contain no evidence of an entry wound in the cowlick. We now know that some of the HSCA FPP consultants raised questions about the alleged cowlick entry wound (and about the amount of missing frontal bone in the x-rays), but Baden ignored them. A number of other doctors who have examined the x-rays have likewise concluded there is no indication of a cowlick entry wound.
-
I missed the bit where your made up second head-shot explained why the x-rays are unaltered.
Sibert / O'Neill testimony- forgot which one of them - mentions : "it was in the hairline". The hairline, last time checked, is not the cowlick.
As to Mr Griffith: the missing piece of skull arrived long after the autopsy began, yes?
-
Sibert / O'Neill testimony- forgot which one of them - mentions : "it was in the hairline". The hairline, last time checked, is not the cowlick.
Oh, I wasn't disputing that. But Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, oddly enough, says nothing about the location of the rear head entry wound.
The conspirators were forced to pick their poison: leave the low fragment trail in the x-rays and acknowledge the EOP entry point, which posed an impossible trajectory from the sixth-floor window and could not explain the high fragment trail, or remove the low fragment trail, deny the EOP entry wound, and move the entry wound up 4 inches to at least appear to explain the high fragment trail, which posed the risk that the revised entry wound would eventually be debunked by honest experts, which in turn would leave a second headshot as the only rational explanation for the high fragment trail.
Adding the 6.5 mm object to the AP x-ray to appear to lend credence to a cowlick entry wound turned out to be a blunder of huge proportions, because the forgers apparently did not imagine that one day technology (OD measurements) would be able to categorically prove the object to be fake.
It also appears that the forgers were not aware that there are four tiny bullet fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, in addition to the small fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. Dr. McDonnel spotted one of them when he reviewed the skull x-rays for the HSCA (7 HSCA 218). Dr. Mantik spotted the three others with OD measurements and high-magnification viewing.
As to Mr Griffith: the missing piece of skull arrived long after the autopsy began, yes?
No, that is not correct. Several skull fragments arrived toward the end of the autopsy. This is documented in the autopsy report and in the testimony of several people at the autopsy.
Anyone who claims that the autopsy skull x-rays are unaltered is simply unaware or of, or in denial about, the hard scientific evidence that they have been altered: the 6.5 mm object, the impossible white patch, the impossible dark frontal area on the lateral x-rays, the confirmation that the Harper fragment is occipital bone (just as the three pathologists who examined it in Dallas determined), the absence of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, etc.