Over the years, Warren Commission defenders have offered a variety of theories intended to explain why a shot from the rear would cause Kennedy's head to snap backwards. Predictably, Ayton and Von Pein invoke the two most popular of these hypotheses: the "neuromuscular reaction" and the "jet effect". (p. 96-97)
As Larry Sturdivan explains it, the neuromuscular reaction theory suggests that, "The tissue inside [Kennedy's] skull was being moved around. It caused a massive amount of nerve stimulation to go down his spine. Every nerve in his body was stimulated...since the back muscles are stronger than the abdominal muscles, that meant that Kennedy arched dramatically backwards." (NOVA Cold Case: JFK, 2013) However, as Donald Thomas explains,
"Sturdivan's postulate suffers from a patently anomalous notion of the anatomy. In any normal person the antagonistic muscles of the limbs are balanced, and regardless of the relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the limbs upward, outward, and forward. Backward extension of the limbs is unnatural and awkward; certainly not reflexive. Likewise, the largest muscle in the back, the 'erector spinae,' functions exactly as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright. Neither the erector spinae, or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their contraction." (Thomas, p. 341)
Not only is the reaction that Sturdivan describes highly implausible, it is also in conflict with the Zapruder film. It is quite clear from watching the film that Kennedy's movement did not begin with an arching of the back. As the ITEK corporation noted following extensive slow motion study, his head snapped backwards first, "then his whole body followed the backward movement." (ITEK report, p. 64)
If Sturdivan's theory seems plausible before closer analysis, that is more than can be said for Luis Alvarez's jet effect hypothesis. Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, suggested that in a similar fashion to the thrust developed in a jet engine in response to its exhaust, the explosive exiting of blood and brain matter from the right side of Kennedy's head created a corresponding propulsive momentum in the opposite direction, pushing it backwards. He claimed to have proven his theory by firing a rifle at melons wrapped in tape which, as Ayton and Von Pein write, were "propelled backward in the direction of the rifle." (p. 97) But, as should be immediately obvious, a melon is nothing like a human head. It weighs around half as much and so requires far less energy to set in motion. It also lacks a bone and, therefore, offers little resistance to a bullet. This means that there is little deposition of momentum and, consequently, very little force to overcome.
Alvarez first presented his theory and the results of his melon tests in the September 1976 issue of the American Journal of Physics. As author Josiah Thompson discovered a few years ago when he acquired the raw notes and photos from all of Alvarez's tests, the physicist had kept some important information to himself. Alvarez had reported on tests performed on May 31, 1970, during which 6 out of 7 melons had recoiled "in a retrograde manner."
What he did not divulge was that there had been two earlier rounds of testing which painted a very different picture. During those earlier firings, Alvarez had used larger, heavier melons which apparently did not behave the way he wanted them to. In later tests he reduced their size by half and jacked up the velocity of his bullets to 3000 fps. Alvarez also fired at a variety of other objects besides melons. There were coconuts filled with jello which were blown 39 feet forward; a plastic jug of water which went 6 feet downrange; and 5 rubber balls filled with gelatin; all of which were blown away from the rifle. In fact, as Thompson noted during his presentation at the Wecht Institutes' Passing the Torch symposium in 2013, "in these tests, every time they shot anything but a melon it went with the bullet. But Alvarez didn't tell anybody that." Nor did he disclose the fact that his JFK experiments had been funded by the U.S. Government. (Wrone, p. 103)
According to Ayton and Von Pein, "a key point that is often overlooked or downplayed by conspiracy theorists is the fact that when JFK is struck in the head with a bullet...the President's head initially moves forward, not backward...which is consistent with the head shot coming from behind..." (p. 98) Can they be serious? Far from being "overlooked or downplayed" this alleged forward motion was actually first discovered by a "conspiracy theorist," Josiah Thompson, who wrote about it in detail in his classic book, Six Seconds in Dallas. Thompson measured the forward movement between Zapruder frames 312 and 313 as approximately two inches and, together with the much larger backward motion, took it as evidence of two shots striking the skull almost simultaneously. However, Thompson has since realised that he made a crucial mistake.
In his online essay, Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, Thompson writes,
"In the years since those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there."
Thompson further explained in his 2013 Wecht symposium presentation, "Since highly exposed areas; that is bright areas of the film; have a whole lot of energy to them, if the shutter is open and the camera moved, then those highly energized areas will intrude into low energized areas. It's a basic photographic principle." Indeed, during his presentation Thompson demonstrated how this principle affected other objects in the Zapruder film besides Kennedy's head.
What all this means according to Thompson is that "there is no longer any solid evidence whatsoever; whatsoever; that John Kennedy was hit in the head from the rear between 312 and 313." As Thompson's co-presenter, Keith Fitzgerald, demonstrated, JFK's head actually exhibits its fastest forward movement between frames 328 and 330, which just so happens to be precisely when the final shot from the Book Depository appears on the Dallas Police dictabelt recording if we align the Grassy Knoll shot with frame 313. This synchronization of audio and visual evidence fully supports the belief of Drs. Riley, Wecht, and Robertson that Kennedy's head was struck by two bullets; one from the front and one from the rear. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt)
In order to account for Kennedy’s backward head recoil at the moment of impact, Bugliosi resorts to bizarre and implausible explanations like supersonic jetting and freak instantaneous muscle spasms. . . .
The second theory was that the listless Kennedy experienced a muscle spasm at the precise moment of impact, caused by the bullet passing through his brain. Any theory suggesting muscle spasms or contractions has to deal with the issue of human reaction times. As discussed previously, human reaction times are not infinitely fast. The body does not react instantaneously to insult. When the doctor hits your knee with the rubber hammer, there is a noticeable delay before your leg muscles flex and your lower leg extends upward. This reaction time can be quantified by the simple experiment of dropping a ruler between your thumb and forefinger. As this experiment demonstrates, human reaction times are on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.
Zapruder film frames are snapshots taken at 54-millisecond intervals. On the very next frame after the bullet impact, frame Z314, Kennedy is already moving noticeably backward. On frame Z315, his head has moved even farther to the rear, on the order of several inches. Neck muscles are a very weak muscle group in humans, where the head is designed to rest vertically on the neck, not to be supported against gravity as in the case of nonhuman primates. For this model to be viable, it requires a muscle contraction from the waist. A backward spasm from the waist is a major movement of a large muscle group. It’s much harder to do this than it is to pinch your fingers together. Yet, for the theory of the backward muscle spasm to explain the head recoil, Kennedy’s large muscle reaction time would have to have been much faster than human reaction times in the finger pinch test, which are about 200 milliseconds. Therefore, a simple experiment in human reaction times rules out the possibility that Kennedy’s rearward head motion is due to a muscle spasm induced by the incoming bullet striking his brain. . . .
Bugliosi’s entire laborious analysis is reminiscent of the ancient practice of adding epicycles, nested circles, to planetary orbits to salvage the Ptolemaic or “earth-centered” model of the solar system. (Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, New York: Prometheus Books, 2012, pp. 130, 134-135)
In order to account for Kennedy’s backward head recoil at the moment of impact, Bugliosi resorts to bizarre and implausible explanations like supersonic jetting and freak instantaneous muscle spasms. . . .
The second theory was that the listless Kennedy experienced a muscle spasm at the precise moment of impact, caused by the bullet passing through his brain. Any theory suggesting muscle spasms or contractions has to deal with the issue of human reaction times. As discussed previously, human reaction times are not infinitely fast. The body does not react instantaneously to insult. When the doctor hits your knee with the rubber hammer, there is a noticeable delay before your leg muscles flex and your lower leg extends upward. This reaction time can be quantified by the simple experiment of dropping a ruler between your thumb and forefinger. As this experiment demonstrates, human reaction times are on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.
Josiah Thompson’s conclusion that JFK’s head moves approximately 2 inches between Z312-313 is wrong, and that Thompson has acknowledged his error.
In his book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, Dr. Chambers rejects the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory as a “bizarre and implausible explanations” for Kennedy’s backward head movement. His refutation of the jet-effect theory is devastating, but I will just quote part of his refutation of the neurospasm theory:
Zapruder film frames are snapshots taken at 54-millisecond intervals. On the very next frame after the bullet impact, frame Z314, Kennedy is already moving noticeably backward. On frame Z315, his head has moved even farther to the rear, on the order of several inches. Neck muscles are a very weak muscle group in humans, where the head is designed to rest vertically on the neck, not to be supported against gravity as in the case of nonhuman primates. For this model to be viable, it requires a muscle contraction from the waist. A backward spasm from the waist is a major movement of a large muscle group. It’s much harder to do this than it is to pinch your fingers together. Yet, for the theory of the backward muscle spasm to explain the head recoil, Kennedy’s large muscle reaction time would have to have been much faster than human reaction times in the finger pinch test, which are about 200 milliseconds. Therefore, a simple experiment in human reaction times rules out the possibility that Kennedy’s rearward head motion is due to a muscle spasm induced by the incoming bullet striking his brain. . .
However, an experiment cited by conspiracist Milicent Cranor demonstrates that even less time may be required.
Cranor summarizes a study published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):
Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:
Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)
Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)
Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)
Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)
Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)
Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm
I will start with Martin Hay’s critique, which, among other things, exposes Dr. Alvarez’s concealment of ballistics tests information that contradicted his claims.
Notice, also, that Hay discusses the fact that Josiah Thompson’s conclusion that JFK’s head moves approximately 2 inches between Z312-313 is wrong, and that Thompson has acknowledged his error.
The head moved forward between frames Z312 and Z313 in 1967. And it still moves forward today.
I haven’t heard of anything so low down since a Mr. Griffith’s concealment of ballistic tests information that contradicted his claims from Dr. Zacharko. I am shocked at Dr. Alvarez.
It is impossible for Thompson to acknowledge his error because these measurements were not made by him. It would be like me confessing my error in the Michelson–Morley experiment that falsely indicated that the speed of light was the same in all directions.
These measurements were made by physics graduate student William Hoffman, not Josiah Thompson. Josiah Thompson commissioned Hoffman for this work because he was better trained and had more experience making careful measurements. And no one knew about the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis back in the 1960’s so he had no motive to fake the results. In that sense, it is impossible to even get another such unbiased measurements taken again in the future.
Yes Jerry, it does. But as they say in Michael’s favorite movie “After all tomorrow is another day”. Click on the link below to get an even clearer picture. http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
Many years ago, I concluded that the President had been struck twice in the head within approximately one-ninth of a second between Zapruder frames 312 and 314. The first shot pushed his head forward approximately two inches between frames 312 and 313. The second shot bowled him over backwards and to the left.
Although it remained a remarkable coincidence that two shots would arrive on their target from different locations and distances within one-ninth of a second, this conclusion was compelled by what I measured on sequential frames of the Zapruder film. Using two points on the back of the limousine, I measured the distance between these points and the back of the President's head. Between frames 312 and 313, this distance increased dramatically by two inches. The only way to explain this extraordinary acceleration of the President's head was to suppose he had been hit by a bullet fired from the rear.
In the years since those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there.
Since that time, David Wimp has made extremely careful measurements on the film. He has determined that the upper bodies of the President and all other occupants of the limousine begin moving forward at about Z308. Except for the President, all the others keep moving forward until at least Z317. The President, of course, is bowled over backward and to the left. This retrograde motion begins at about Z314. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_3.html)
You are not to be taken seriously, because you use dishonest arguments. The ballistics tests that I "concealed" from Dr. Zacharko were the irrelevant goat tests to which you keep clinging. You keep ignoring the fact that human and goat neurobiology and neurophysics are not the same. You keep ignoring Dr. Zacharko's detailed explanation of why no neurospasm could have caused the backward head movement. Etc., etc., etc.
Thompson checked the measurements and believed they were accurate. He now realizes they were wrong, for the reasons he explains in his article (and which are quoted in my OP).
Yeah, and it looks like Organ is making the same mistake that Thompson and Hoffman made.
I take it you have not read physicist Art Snyder's research on this issue, which research persuaded Thompson that he was wrong.
Frankly, I would be glad if the Zapruder film did show a 2.3-inch movement in 1/18th/second just before the backward head snap begins, because that would be a reversal of movement that could not be caused by gunfire on this planet and would be further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.
It might be worthwhile to read Dr. Thompson's entire section on the supposed 2.3-inch forward movement in Z312-313:
One, you realize that Milicent Cranor says the neuromuscular-reaction theory is ridiculous, right?
Two, the response times you're citing are auditory startle reflex times, not muscle response times to the impact of a bullet. There's no damage to any tissue from an auditory stimulus, unlike when you have a bullet strike and damage a skull.
The head moved forward between frames Z312 and Z313 in 1967. And it still moves forward today..
The most important evidence we have is video of an animal showing the neuromuscular spasm. We only have the one video, because it’s the only video I know that shows an animal being shot by a rifle bullet through the head.
If you’re going to get me to listen to an expert, that expert had better know the best pieces of evidence that both sides have. He better know all about the best piece of evidence that our side has. He doesn’t have to accept it, but he damm well better know about it. Otherwise, I’m not listening.
I don’t want you to decide what evidence is relevant or not. I want the “expert” to decide. And to hear the “expert’s” reasons on why they feel this evidence is relevant or not.
And as far as that not being relevant, the U. S. Army took film of, as memory serves me, 10,000 goats (who were drugged unconscious) being shot in various parts of the body. This was not done because some general in the Pentagon believed that the wars of the future were going to be fought by goats. These tests were commissioned to get insight into what happens at the moment a human soldier was wounded. It might give insight on how to better treat the wounded. Or develop better bullets. Somebody thought these tests were relevant.
The army figured accurately that animals can be used for this purpose. Afterall, the military had lots of experience, not in World War II but in previous wars, were animals, mostly horses, were exposed to enemy fire and observed that the effects of bullets on animals did not seem to be vastly different than the effects on humans.
Perhaps humans and animals would react greatly differently to rifle bullets to the head but, up until 1963, no one thought so.
Questions:
Can you quote an expert who before 1963 said that humans and animals would react differently to a rifle bullet through the brain or was this an argument first developed after 1963 to bolster certain arguments on the Kennedy assassination?
Was this something that was well known before then or was it something that was first “discovered” afterwards.
Yeah. I have the same problem. A lot of us LNers have that. Trusting what my eyes tell me and not what you or Art Snyder or Thompson tell me. I’ll have to get my eyes checked out by an optometrist.
The head seemed quite still from z304 up through z312, according to Hoffman’s careful measurements. I don’t see why these “distortions” would kick in right at z313, and cause JFK’s head to appear to move forward, while causing Jackie’s head to appear to stay still, as did JFK’s up until z313.
Does Snyder explain that?
No, you wouldn’t. You hope that there is no 2.3-inch forward movement, indicating a shot from the rear. You would wish the film would show itself to be a fake in some other way, any other way than that. That is why you argue there is no 2.3-inch forward movement.
Not unless he explains why this “distorted-apparent” movement is not there during z304-z312, but only kicks in at z313.
Not unless he explains why this “distorted-apparent” movement only effect JFK’s head but not Jackie’s?
You want me to except that Dr. Thompson’s arguments that the forward movement is not real. But to not accept his arguments that the film is real.
If Thompson can’t tell that the Zapruder film is an obvious fake, why are you interested on his opinion on if the head appears to move forward at z313? I would have thought that, for that reason alone, you wouldn’t be interested in what else Thompson thought of the film.
But I have some questions for you that don’t require any research. You can answer them within 5 minutes just using reasoning.
Questions:
Why should Dr. Chambers, Dr. Mantik and you claim that the fast-neuromuscular spasm in a human has been established as being impossible, or highly unlikely, when this can only be established as impossible or unlikely by running tests on human subjects?
Wouldn’t one have to run these experiments first, before making these claims?
If these tests cannot be run, shouldn’t we withhold judgment?
Or is it more scientific to just guess?
You have once again responded with a long reply that does not lay a finger on any of the facts that refute the neuromuscular-reaction theory. You did not address a single fact that Martin Hay raised, and you are claiming, without any credible evidence, that Dr. Chambers is simply wrong about human neuromuscular reaction times.
Just exactly who are your neuroscientists/physicists who say the neuromuscular-reaction theory is plausible? I can name numerous such scholars who say the theory is implausible/bizarre/nonsensical, including Dr. Zacharko, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Riley, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Snyder.
. . . there is a video of a goat which was shot through the head which causes its body to move pretty forcibly. . . . The goat starts moving its body 40 milliseconds after the bullet struck. So, the very next frame, roughly 55 milliseconds later, JFK’s head starts moving as well.
The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. (1 HSCA 416)
Now, this sequence will show the same goat, exactly the same shot, but in this case the movies are taken at 2,400. frames per second. . . .
Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen. (1 HSCA 416-417)
When I pointed out that the backward movement of JFK’s head in the Zapruder film begins too quickly (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) to have been caused by a neuromuscular reaction, Elliott claimed that the goat film proved otherwise:
You are getting that (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) from Chambers. He is wrong. He has Kennedy being hit at Z313 and then noticeable moving backward in the next frame. Kennedy was hit between Z312 and Z313 and the ITEK report has Z315 as being the frame where Kennedy's backward movement is clearly in progress. So, the response time was 110 milliseconds or more.
Huh?! So now JFK's head doesn't start to move backward until 315?! You'd better go back and read what Elliott himself has acknowledged on this point, not only in this thread but in the his own thread on Dr. Zacharko.
We're not talking about when the head movement is "clearly in progress" but when it begins, and it begins at Z313. Even Nicholas Nalli, in the latest attempt to salvage the jet-effect theory, says, "In Z313 the catastrophic effect of the energy deposit from a supersonic projectile passing through a human head is clearly evident. . . . showing both the initial 'forward snap' of the President's head from Z312 to Z313, along with the 'rearward lurch' from frames Z313 to Z322." Nobody but you denies this.
You are getting that (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) from Chambers. He is wrong. He has Kennedy being hit at Z313 and then noticeable moving backward in the next frame. Kennedy was hit between Z312 and Z313 and the ITEK report has Z315 as being the frame where Kennedy's backward movement is clearly in progress. So, the response time was 110 milliseconds or more.
Hello Tim
You are right. I myself refer to it as 55 millisecond delay, but it was probably longer. But I don’t know about a full 110 milliseconds.
Defining time as z-312.0 – the camera shutter first opens, z-312.5 – the shutter closes, the head was probably struck about z-312.6, giving the head about 45 milliseconds to move an inch forward by z-313.0. By z-313.5, it was now just over 2 inches forward. By z314.0, it might still be 2 inches forward, it is hard to tell. But by 314.5, the head definitely started moving backwards and had already moved half an inch.
I would guess the backwards movement may have started over the interval z-312.6-314.0, or 75 milliseconds. Perhaps over the interval z-312.5-314.0 or 80 milliseconds. But not a lot more than that. If the delay was a full 110 milliseconds, by the times of z-314.5, the head would still have been 2 inches ahead of its z-312.5 position.
Joe
Hi Joe,
I'm trying to find the scientific data on the goat reflex time but can't, can you tell me where to find it. Thanks
It's not just me that denies it. The ITEK panel of photo and film analysis experts denied it as well.
Fragmentary material from the President's head is seen flying upward and outward in frames 313 and 314. The fragments are already airborne and in motion in frame 313. Extrapolation backwards indicates that the explosion began in frame 312 rather than 313, since this would be the frame nearest to the moment when the fragments left the head. (6 HSCA 27)
Ah-ha! I knew it! I just knew it! I knew there was something wrong with Joe Elliott’s description of the 1948 U.S. Army ballistics test film of a goat being shot in the head.
. . .
Anyway, to recap: The goat film that Elliott has been citing was not filmed in real time but in 2,400 fps. The real-time film of the same goat and the same test shows that the goat’s reaction did not begin until about 1,000 milliseconds after the bullet hit the skull.
Mr. STURDIVAN - Let me stop the film here and explain what is going to happen. This goat is standing with his horns taped to a bar, only to preserve the aiming point of the bullet, which will come in from the right this time, not from the left, from the right, will strike the goat between the eyes. The black tape is there only to show the relative motion which we were presuming was going to be small. I should say they were presuming, since this film was taken back around 1948, I believe. The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.
Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen.
I doubt that Itek said that JFK's head does not move backward at all in Z313. Got a link to that report? I read it years ago but no longer have it.
The HSCA noted that the particulate spray from JFK's head indicates that the explosion began in Z312:
I could cite a couple dozen analyses that have determined that JFK's head begins to move backward at Z313. This has been measured. From Z313-314, the head moves backward 0.5-0.6 inches.
Until today, I had never seen anyone question this observation. But, of course, now you realize that you need more time--a lot more time, like close to 100% more time--for your neurospasm-reaction theory to even be remotely possible. So, suddenly you decide that, "oh, well, actually, the backward movement doesn't begin until . . . Z315"!
And I see Joe Elliott is rejecting Sturdivan's specification of the reaction time in real time and is going with Sturdivan's 2400-fps-based time of 40 milliseconds. I guess real-time reaction time must be ditched to make the neurospasm-reaction theory appear to be possible. Ok, if you want to ignore the real-time time, then find me any evidence that a human neurospasm of that magnitude can occur in 40 milliseconds.
What does Mr. Sturdivan say:
No where does Mr. Sturdivan say that first reaction of the goat is the “decerebrate rigidity”, which he observes happening about one second after the shot. He is saying that the last movement of the goat takes place 1,000 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet.
So, when is the soonest reaction of the goat observed? Later he states:
His entire HSCA testimony is on the following website:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm
It doesn’t matter if the film is shot at 24 frames per second or 2,400 frames per second. Four one-hundredths of a second is still four one-hundredths of a second. Or 40 milliseconds. 40 milliseconds after impact, the back legs start to go out.
Ah-ahhh ! ! !
So, yes, I confess. If we define the length of time that the goat starts to react as being the last time the goat moved at all, then the goat reaction time is 1,000 milliseconds. Damm, that is one slow goat. But if we define the length of time that the goat starts to react as being the first time he starts to move, the goat’s reaction time is 40 milliseconds.
If I can define JFK’s reaction time the same way Mr. Griffith does, when the backward movement of JFK stopped, at frame 321, then JFK’s reaction time was 490 milliseconds. Well within the possible reaction time of Dr. Zacharko, Dr. Mantik and all of his other experts.
Ah-ahhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep trying, but you haven’t got my goat yet.
The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.
The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction. (1 HSCA 416)
. . . the arms and legs being held straight out, the toes being pointed downward, and the head and neck being arched backward. The muscles are tightened and held rigidly. This type of posturing usually means there has been severe damage to the brain.
. . . then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen. (1 H 417)
Just to make sure that I'm understanding you right, by Z-314.5 you mean what we know as Z315?
Oh boy oh boy. Apparently you do not know what "decerebrate" means and what a "decerebrate reaction" is. Apparently you don't understand that when Sturdivan talked about the beginning and end (terminus) of the "decerebrate reaction," he was referring to the neuromuscular reaction. Instead, you're assuming that when Sturdivan said "and that takes places about a second after the shot," he was only talking about half of the actions he had just described, because you think that the decerebrate reaction is separate from the neuromuscular reaction. First, let's read Sturdivan again:
Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen.
In this scenario, the neuromuscular spasm started 82 milliseconds after the bullet impact. The real time of reaction could be a little more, or less.
Oh boy oh boy. Apparently you do not know what "decerebrate" means and what a "decerebrate reaction" is. Apparently you don't understand that when Sturdivan talked about the beginning and end (terminus) of the "decerebrate reaction," he was referring to the neuromuscular reaction. Instead, you're assuming that when Sturdivan said "and that takes places about a second after the shot," he was only talking about half of the actions he had just described, because you think that the decerebrate reaction is separate from the neuromuscular reaction. First, let's read Sturdivan again:
Now let's see what "decerebrate" means:
That is exactly the reaction that Sturdivan describes seeing in the 2400 fps film, and he calls it "the neuromuscular reaction that I described," which could only refer to the description of the real-time film:
Sturdivan knew what "decerebrate reaction" means, and he used it synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction." His syntax could have been a little clearer, but if you know what "decerebrate" means, you can see he was not saying that the decerebrate reaction was different from the neuromuscular reaction--he knew enough not to make such a fundamental error.
Now that we have that point cleared up, you need to deal with his observation that in "real time" the neuromuscular reaction began about 1000 milliseconds after bullet impact.
Amazing. For the past week or so you have repeatedly said that JFK's head began to move backward 55 milliseconds after bullet impact. I trust I don't need to quote you to yourself. But, well, now that you realize you need that movement to start later--much later--to allow for the mere possibility that it was caused by a neurospasm, you suddenly decide that it might have begun 82 seconds after impact, an increase of 48%.
What does Mr. Sturdivan mean when he says:
Don’t change the subject. Don’t quote a different portion of the testimony.
Just give me your interpretation of this sentence. My interpretation is that 40 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet, the goat’s body starts to move.
No. I am not measuring time to the nearest frame, but to the nearest tenth of a frame. Each tenth of a frame is roughly 5 milliseconds long.
z-312.0 is when the shutter opens for frame 312. Roughly 27 milliseconds later the shutter closes at z-312.5. Frame z-312 shows images from time z-312.0 through z-312.5.
I believe the bullet struck at z-312.5, or there abouts, right when the shutter closed or very shortly after. Below is a possible, approximate, time scale. Basically, my best very rough estimate:
Vis Time Time
able in in
sec. Zap Event
---- ----- ------- ---------------
0.000 z-312.5 Shutter closes.
0.000 z-312.5 Bullet impact.
0.001 z-312.5 Bullet leaves head,
momentum has been deposited into head,
the head starts moving at a steady speed forward.
0.027 z-313.0 Shutter opens.
vis 0.027 z-313.0 Head is now 1 inch in front of z-312 position, same steady speed
vis 0.055 z-313.5 Head is now 2 inches in front of z-312 position, same steady speed
0.055 z-313.5 Shutter closes.
0.077 z-314.0 Shutter opens.
vis 0.082 z-314.1 Neuromuscular spasm commences,
vis Head starts moving back, initially slowly.
vis 0.110 z-314.5 Head is now 1.5 inches ahead of 312.5 position.
0.110 z-314.5 Shutter closes.
“vis” refers to events that may be visible, because the shutter was open.
Again, this is not to represent exact locations. I don’t have the timing down to the nearest 5 milliseconds. Just a possible scenario consistent with what the Zapruder film shows and William Hoffman’s data.
In this scenario, the neuromuscular spasm started 82 milliseconds after the bullet impact. The real time of reaction could be a little more, or less.
Then please explain what Sturdivan meant when he stated in pretty plain English that in "real time" the reaction took about 1,000 milliseconds. Is "real time" really not real time? Did Sturdivan just egregiously misspeak?
First, let's read Sturdivan again:
This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.
From "the time that the bullet struck" to the "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" took about 1,000 milliseconds. That's what Sturdivan was saying.
*splayed out
-- MWT ;)
PS Great post!
PS A little something for you and all the other "shot-from-the-front" CTers out there to bear in mind:
Back muscles are significantly stronger than stomach muscles.
Hmmm ...
What about neck muscles?
Sturdivan may have been using "decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction" ,but you err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". He used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity".
The panel [the HSCA’s forensic pathology panel] seems to have confounded different neuromuscular phenomena. . . . The origin of this scenario is found in the testimony of an expert with the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal, Larry Sturdivan. Sturdivan proposed that because the muscles in the back of the arms and legs are much larger than the ones in the front, and because the muscles of the back are much larger than the abdominals, then stimulation of all the muscles would result in a backward motion.
Sturdivan’s postulate suffers from a patently anomalous notion of anatomy. In any normal person the antagonistic muscles of the lims are balanced, and regardless of the relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the limbs upward, outward, and forward. Backward extension of the limbs is unnatural and awkward, certainly not reflexive. Likewise, the largest muscle in the back, the erector spinae, functions exactly as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright. Neither the erector spinae or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their contraction. The reader is invited to sit on the edge of a bed and attempt to lunge backward by muscle contraction. Such a movement is unnatural, not reflexive, and can be achieved only by relaxing, not clenching, the muscles of the trunk.
Sturdivan’s concept of muscular anatomy only begins to make sense when one realizes that his standard of reference must have been the goats used in the Army’s terminal ballistics experiments. The muscle arrangement in a quadruped is significantly different from those of a bipedal human. In a goat, the muscles of the legs are designed for a stiff-legged gait, and powerful muscles lever the neck and head against gravity.
Sturdivan exhibited a film to the members of the Assassinations Committee showing the effect of gunshot to the head of a goat. The legs kicked out and the back arched, movements consistent with the natural movements that a startled goat would be expected to make. . . .
The Panel’s mentioning of stiffening of the body suggests that they confounded the decerebrate rigidity exhibited by the goat in its death throes with the mechanism invoked by Sturdivan. . . . The classic work of the English physiologist Denny-Brown on motor reflexes explained that decerebrate rigidity, also called the “stretch” reflex, is secured by a slow contraction process of the extensor muscles. It is a function of the spinal cord and is a postural reflex, which is to say that as the motor control centers in the brain stem receive feedback indicating a sagging of the body, it induces a reflexive stiffening of the trunk and limbs to break the fall. The arching of the back and agonistic outstretching of the limbs characterizes this response. President Kennedy did not react in this way. The rearward movement of the head began at impact, without the delay or latency that characterizes the extensor reflex of decerebrate rigidity. . . .
Sturdivan explained his theory of a neuromuscular reaction as a mechanical stimulation of the brain stem incuding a massive neurogenic surge resulting in contraction of the skeletal muscles. Actually, neurologists recognize a convulsive reaction to brain damage as post-traumatic motor seizures. . . . Such post-traumatic motor seizures occur with high incidence in penetrating head injuries. But, the muscular convulsions associated with destruction of the brain do not result from a massive surge of impulses from the brain, as was the case with the Moro reflex, but rather from removal of the control function that inhibits spastic, convulsive muscular seizures. Consequently there is an inherent delay or latency period before the onset of convulsions. There was no delay in the rearward movement of the President’s head.
Because a spastic movement toward the shooter is evidenced in some execution films, one or another of these neuromuscular phenomena must be involved in those cases. It is therefore plausible that someone suffering a catastrophic destruction of the brain from a shot in the head would respond with an explosive motor spasm. Thus, a brain-traumatized person in a sitting position might lunge backward caused by a thrust of the legs against the floor as posited by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. It is also clear, however, that this did not happen in the case of President Kennedy. Slow motion examination of the Zapruder film by the ITEK corporation demonstrated that the head snapped backward first, with the shoulders following, with the body then toppling over backward and to the left. Had an explosive motor spasm occurred, a sort of Grand Mal seizure, the shoulders and the head would have jerked backward at the same time. Nothing like that happened.
One might even ask: why didn’t it happen? Would not the destruction of the brain result in a convulsive muscular spasm as it did in the test-shot goat? The obvious answer lies in the fact that the President’s spinal cord had been traumatized 5 seconds before the head shot. Without a functional spinal cord, the spasmodic muscular convulsions seen in head-traumatized victims cannot be induced. Sturdivan acknowledged in testimony that if the President’s spinal cord had been severed by the earlier shot to the base of the neck, then the neuromuscular reaction that he had postulated could not have happened.
But Sturdivan offered as evidence for the presence of cord function the “fact” that Kennedy had grasped at his throat wound. Sturdivan’s grasp of the evidence indicates a greater familiarity with the Warren Commission’s distorted version of events than with neuromuscular physiology. (Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010, pp. 332-335)
So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply. Sturdivan was not a medical scientist of any kind. He made several mistakes when he talked about the medical aspects of Kennedy's movements. Part of the problem seems to be that you have not done enough research on the medical and ballistics evidence to understand what you are reading in some cases.
Here is some reading for you. This is Dr. Donald Thomas’s destruction of Sturdivan’s defense of the neuromusuclar-reaction theory. Dr. Thomas, a research scientist whose work has been published in peer-reviewed forensic journals, shows that Sturdivan got the anatomy wrong, got the muscle functions wrong, and got the medical science wrong, and that the goat film is irrelevant because of the enormous differences in goat and human anatomy and because the goat's movements do not duplicate Kennedy's movements. Dr. Thomas also explains why it would have been impossible—not just improbable or unlikely, but impossible--for a neurospasm to have caused Kennedy’s backward movement.
I haven't misread Sturdivan's testimony at all. You have. In claiming that Sturdivan was saying that the neuromuscular reaction began about 1000 milliseconds after bullet impact, you were obviously working under the false assumption that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction".
Thomas' area of expertise is the study of insects.
Sturdivan's expertise is wound ballistics. Sturdivan has also had his work published in peer-reviewed forensics journals. One such being "BALLISTICS FOR THE NEUROSURGEON" published in Neurosurgery, which is the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. His work has also been published in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Journal of Surgical Research, and Computers in Biology and Medicine, to name a few others. Thomas should stick to what he knows and quit embarassing himself by foraying into areas beyond his ken.
You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction."
So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply.
Never mind that neuroscientists Joe Riley and Robert Zacharko have likewise said that the neuromuscular-reaction theory is nonsense, right? And never mind that you guys can't cite a single neuroscientist who is willing to say that JFK's backward movement could have been caused by a neurospasm, right?
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 07:56:09 PM
You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction."
VS
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 01:23:39 PM
So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply.
Again, Sturdivan was using "decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction", but you err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". He used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity". "Decerebrate rigidity" is NOT the same thing as "decerebrate reaction". It is the end point of a "decerebrate reaction".
Wow, really? So that's your answer: Dr. Thomas doesn't know what he's talking about regarding human anatomy and neuro reactions? Wow, uh-huh. Never mind that neuroscientists Joe Riley and Robert Zacharko have likewise said that the neuromuscular-reaction theory is nonsense, right? And never mind that you guys can't cite a single neuroscientist who is willing to say that JFK's backward movement could have been caused by a neurospasm, right?
Neuroscientist? Didn't Zacharko teach psychology at Carleton? Maybe I should ask Jordan Peterson what he thinks.
Neuroscience is an emerging academic discipline that includes physiological, anatomical, biochemical, and behavioural studies of the nervous system
Your dishonest parsing of my words is downright silly. There is no conflict between those two statements. In the 1:23 reply I simply observed that I had not said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." In the reply in question, I did not say anything about how he used the term "decerebrate rigidity." In the 1:23 reply, I was not denying that he did so but was simply pointing out that I had not said that he did. I guess to anticipate your dishonest parsing of my words, I should have added that I would not have been wrong to have said that he used the terms synonymously, but my point was to simply observe that Joe Elliott attributed a statement to me that I did not make.
I notice you didn't bother to quote the part of my reply where I explained that not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions and that Sturdivan said that the goat's neuromuscular reaction was a decerebrate reaction.
You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction."
So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply.
Wrong. You didn't even bother to Google this, did you? Or perhaps you did but did not grasp what you were reading. Let us see what a quick Google search turns up about "decerebrate rigidity" and "decerebrate response." Sturdivan used the term "decerebrate reaction" but the standard term is "decerebrate response." Two other common synonyms are "decerebrate posturing" and "extensor posturing." Let us take a look:
"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing. It describes the involuntary extension of the upper extremities in response to external stimuli." (http://web.as.uky.edu/biology/faculty/cooper/bio535/chapter%2016-liz.pdf)
"In decerebrate posturing (also called decerebrate response or rigidity), the abnormal posturing is characterized by the arms extending at the sides." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)
"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing)
"Also known as extensor posturing, decerebrate rigidity is a term that describes the involuntary extensor positioning of the arms, flexion of the hands, with knee extension and plantar flexion when stimulated as a result of a midbrain lesion." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)
And since you have just waved aside Dr. Thomas's demolition of Sturdivan's defense of the neuromuscular-reaction theory, I guess there's no point in trying to get you to actually address Dr. Thomas's points.
When am I going to learn not to trust what a CTer tells me?
Dr. Robert Zacharko – Neuroscientist ? ! ? ! ?
What information do I find about Dr. Zacharko on the internet:
Robert M. Zacharko, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
By the way, Dr. Zacharko passed away at the age of 63 on January 4, 2016.
The website for the Carleton Institute of Neuroscience says:
http://www3.carleton.ca/calendars/archives/grad/9798/SCIENCE/Institute_of_Neuroscience.htm
It would appear that Dr. Zacharko concentrated on behavioural studies, hence his working for the university as a Professor of Psychology.
It doesn’t sound like he was specializing in studying the nitty ditty details of what can cause neurons to fire.
But I suppose it doesn’t matter. Nervous System Researchers, Psychologists, doctors who specialize in treating nasal infections, there all head doctors, right? That makes them all neuroscientists.
And Dr. Donald Thomas? Well, insects have heads. So, I guess that makes him a neuroscientist as well.
Thank you Tim. Great find.
I think that there is, or was, another Dr. Robert Zacharko at the same University. Probably Jr's father. Same field, I believe.
Tim
Robert M. Zacharko was born on April 13, 1952, to Nicolas and Olga Zacharko. So, the “Neuroscientist” was not his father. However, he had a son named Bobby (Robert). Michael Griffith communicated with Dr. Robert Zacharko on February 8, 1999, when Dr. Zacharko would have been 46 years old. I doubt that his son, with a father only 46 years old, would have been the neuroscientist who responded to Mr. Griffith’s email. I think the 46-year-old Psychology professor was the so called “Neuroscientist” who responded to Mr. Griffith’s enquires, and who Mr. Griffith always referred to as a Neuroscientist.
As far as I know, the son, Bobby, has never been a professor at Carleton University. I did not find any information about the son, except his name.
So that was the scientist who said the neuromuscular spasm was impossible. A Psychology professor. I think the authority sounds more impressive when referred to as a “Neuroscientist”, don’t you?
Joe
LOL! A perfect example of how someone can easily be so wrong. Just like Carl Day was in April of 1964. When I did DDG search for Dr. Robert M. Zacharko, I had two of them come up and they both had been tenured at Carleton. I read right away that one of them had died at 63 years of age. The other one was showing to be 82. It turns out that the 82 was the number of Robert M. Zacharko's research works. (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/blushy-1027.gif)
Yes. I was puzzled about how a neuroscientist, or any scientist, could say the neuromuscular spasm couldn’t happen. With the proper scientific attitude, when asked “Could a neuromuscular spasm happen in a human”, he would in turn ask “What do films say”. When the answer was “We don’t have any such films and cannot obtain any”, the next question the scientist would ask was “What do films of animals show”. If the such films showed no reaction, he might say a neuromuscular spasm was unlikely, or might still withhold judgement. But if the films do show that animals have a neuromuscular spasm, a true scientist would either say “A neuromuscular spasm would likely occur in humans as well”, or perhaps “I still prefer to withhold judgement”, but certainly not “A neuromuscular spasm could never take place in a human, only in non-human animals”. There would be no basis for such an opinion.
However, a Psychology professor might come away with a different opinion. After looking at the film, I sense a certain frustration in the goat. It was as if, no matter how hard he tried, he was never able to meet his parents expectations. This built in frustration could release itself violently, if shot in the head. However, JFK showed no such signs of similar feelings toward his parents. I think Dr. Zacharko must have come to similar conclusions.
When am I going to learn not to trust what a CTer tells me?
Dr. Robert Zacharko – Neuroscientist ? ! ? ! ?
What information do I find about Dr. Zacharko on the internet:
Robert M. Zacharko, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
By the way, Dr. Zacharko passed away at the age of 63 on January 4, 2016.
The website for the Carleton Institute of Neuroscience says:
http://www3.carleton.ca/calendars/archives/grad/9798/SCIENCE/Institute_of_Neuroscience.htm
It would appear that Dr. Zacharko concentrated on behavioural studies, hence his working for the university as a Professor of Psychology.
It doesn’t sound like he was specializing in studying the nitty ditty details of what can cause neurons to fire.
But I suppose it doesn’t matter. Nervous System Researchers, Psychologists, doctors who specialize in treating nasal infections, there all head doctors, right? That makes them all neuroscientists.
Robert Michael Zacharko, 63, of Ottawa, Ontario, passed away on Monday, January 4, 2016 following a long illness. Bob was born April 13, 1952 in Montréal, Quebec to Nicolas and Olga Zacharko (nee Wishnoska). He finished his secondary studies at Cardinal Newman High School and went on to complete his undergraduate degree at Concordia University in Montreal. Post-graduate studies followed at University of Saskatoon where he received his doctorate specializing in the study of neuroscience. He finished his career as a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University. Bob was an active teacher and researcher throughout his career, introducing thousands of students to the study of neuroscience and guiding many through their undergraduate and graduate thesis projects. (https://montrealgazette.remembering.ca/obituary/robert-zacharko-1066570676)
And Dr. Donald Thomas? Well, insects have heads. So, I guess that makes him a neuroscientist as well.
The classic work of the English physiologist Denny-Brown on motor reflexes explained that decerebrate rigidity, also called the “stretch” reflex, is secured by a slow contraction process of the extensor muscles. It is a function of the spinal cord and is a postural reflex, which is to say that as the motor control centers in the brain stem receive feedback indicating a sagging of the body, it induces a reflexive stiffening of the trunk and limbs to break the fall. The arching of the back and agonistic outstretching of the limbs characterizes this response. President Kennedy did not react in this way.
Just how shoddy can your research be? FYI, Dr. Zacharko received his PhD specializing in the study of neuroscience, and as a professor he taught neuroscience. I quote from his obituary in the Montreal Gazette:
Perhaps this is why so many peer-reviewed journals published articles on neuroscience written by Dr. Zacharko:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/38179926_Robert_M_Zacharko
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03704.x
Humm, well, you guys have had no problem citing scholars who were commenting on subjects outside their PhD major. Numerous pro-WC books and articles cite the research of John Lattimer on ballistics and forensic issues, even though Lattimer was a urologist by training.
And just in this thread, you guys have cited Sturdivan, a ballistics guy, on issues relating to anatomy and neuroscience.
The body then stiffens with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck. Since these are the back muscles and the muscles of the back of the neck, the neck arches, the back arches, and the body stiffens into an archlike configuration; upper limbs react next.
Dr. Thomas is right: Kennedy's reaction does not resemble a decerebrate response. If you insist on claiming that Dr. Thomas is wrong about this, you must have a version of the Zapruder film that no one else has seen.
Dr. Zacharko can be called a neuroscientist because any professor of psychology can be called a neuroscientist. But I don’t think a “professor of psychology” is what pops into someone’s mind when you say “neuroscientist”.
As the Carleton University website says:
Neuroscience is an emerging academic discipline that includes physiological, anatomical, biochemical, and behavioural studies of the nervous system
There are 4 disciplines that neuroscience covers:
1. Physiological studies.
2. Anatomical studies.
3. Biochemical studies.
4. Behavioral studies.
Of the four, Behavioral studies is the least useful field of study on forming an opinion of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis.
So, yes, while by convention, a professor of psychology is considered to be a “neuroscientist”, he is not really the appropriate type of scientist to go to for getting an answer to this question.
A urologist is also a real medical doctor. He has the full training any other medical doctors has in treating all sorts of problems, including wounds. And so, even though he was a “urologist”, he was drafted by the U. S. Army, served a doctor with the Third army and treated many casualties, many, no doubt from bullet wounds.
The Kennedy family chose him to make the first nongovernmental examination of the Kennedy autopsy material. No doubt, in part, due to his extensive experience in treating bullet wounds. He had more experience with this than most non-urologist doctors.
I wouldn’t have a problem with Dr. Zacharko if he had just observed film of animals being shot in the brain with rifle bullets. But as far as I can tell, he did none of those things.
Indeed, I would give more weight to a professor of psychology, who bases his opinion on observations of real animals being shot through the brain over a neurologist who specializes in Biochemical studies of nerves, but does not observe these films, but forms his opinions purely from theory.
Who gets his arguments from doctors, like Dr. Lattimer. On this issue, Larry Sturdivan’s opinions are those of Dr. Lattimer’s. I trust Dr. Lattimer’s opinion over that of Dr. Thomas, an entomologist, and over Dr. Zacharko, an professor of psychology.
Yes, if these opinions were first developed by Mr. Sturdivan, I would say he is developing opinions way outside of his area of expertise. But there is nothing wrong with him relating to us the opinions developed by Dr. Lattimer.
A quote from Dr. Lattimer on the neuromuscular spasm:
No, the decerebrate response is the final posture an animal gets into, with certain types of brain damage. For an animal shot through the brain:
1. First the neuromuscular spasm occurs. For a quadraped:
Head pulled upward (when not locked in place)
The back arches
The forelimbs kick forward and outward.
The hindlimbs kick backwards.
2. Followed by the “decerebrate rigidity”, a certain posture an animal ends up in, caused by certain types of brain damage.
You keep confusing “decerebrate response” with “neuromuscular spasm”.
As Mr. Sturdivan explained, the goat went into a neuromuscular spasm starting 40 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet.
By one second after the impact, the animal was in decerebrate rigidity, which is a certain body position, its final body position now that death had occurred.
The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.
The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction (1 HSCA 416).
No one is claiming that the President moving his head back, moving his torso back, moving his arms up, as an example of him getting into the decerebrate rigidity position. Instead this is the first phase, the neuromuscular spasm.
A quote from Dr. Lattimer on the neuromuscular spasm:
No, the decerebrate response is the final posture an animal gets into, with certain types of brain damage. For an animal shot through the brain:
1. First the neuromuscular spasm occurs. For a quadraped:
Head pulled upward (when not locked in place)
The back arches
The forelimbs kick forward and outward.
The hindlimbs kick backwards.
2. Followed by the “decerebrate rigidity”, a certain posture an animal ends up in, caused by certain types of brain damage.
You keep confusing “decerebrate response” with “neuromuscular spasm”.
Lattimer was a fraud who was repeatedly caught misrepresenting his findings and experiments, misrepresenting his sources, rigging his experiments, making erroneous statements, and in a few cases simply making up stuff out of thin air, e.g., his hoax about the Thorburn position.
Sturdivan specified that in "real time" the reaction took about 1 second. You can keep ignoring this fact all day and night, and you can keep citing the 40-millisecond time, but when are you going to deal with the fact that the fastest human reaction time for human movements that are even halfway equivalent to the goat's movements is 100 milliseconds?
By 1975, when a copy of the Zapruder film was shown on national television, the violent rearward head-snap at last had to be given some official explanation. The HSCA addressed the question and heard expert testimony that the motion of Kennedy's body could have been a neurological spasm. According to the Select Committee report, the expert concluded that "nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear." A motion picture was shown of a goat being shot in the head, causing all the goat's muscles to go into a violent, involuntary spasm. Clearly, this does not appear to be what happened to Kennedy, whose whole body appears to go limp as he is thrown backward. There is no splaying of his limbs, as in the shooting of the goat.
The HSCA also turned to its medical panel for an explanation, but the answer there was far from satisfactory. The doctors even suggested the fallacy of the goat experiments, stating, "It would be reasonable to expect that all [the President's] muscles would be similarly stimulated." It is obvious to any viewer that the President's muscles were not in any state of spasmodic stimulation.
In the end, the HSCA could not offer any sure explanation for the violent backward head-snap. The committee's report stated that "the rearward movement of the President's head would not be fundamentally inconsistent with a bullet striking from the rear.”
A weaker statement of explanation is hard to imagine. (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 129-130)
(456) The panel is aware of the time interval between the backward motion of the President's head and the earlier, slight forward motion, possibly caused by the initial missile impact and transfer of energy to the head, as recorded in frames 313-314 of the Zapruder film. The panel further recognizes the possibility of the body stiffening, with an upward and backward lunge, which might have resulted from a massive downward rush of neurologic stimuli to all efferent nerves (those which stimulate muscles). The disparity in mass and strength between those muscles supporting the body on the back (dorsal surface) of the spine and those muscles on the front (ventral) surface could account, at least partially, for this type of motion, although it would be reasonable to expect that all muscles would be similarly stimulated.
(457) The panel suggests that the lacerations of a specific portion of the brain--the cerebral peduncles as described in the autopsy report (89)--could be a cause of decerebrate rigidity, which could contribute to the President's backward motion. Such decerebrate rigidity as Sherrington (90) described usually does not commence for several minutes after separation of the upper brain centers from the brain stem and spinal cord. It is, however, most intense in those muscles which normally counteract the effects of gravity.
(458) The panel is also aware of possible effects on motion that could be caused by the moving car within which the President sat.
(459) The panel concludes that the backward movement of the head following its forward movement occurred after the missile had already exited from the body and had created a large exit defect in the skull, and that it was most probably due to a reverse jet effect, or a neuromuscular reaction, or a combination of the two. The short interval between the two motions supports this explanation. (7 HSCA 173-174)
Would not the destruction of the brain result in a convulsive muscular spasm as it did in the test-shot goat? The obvious answer lies in the fact that the President’s spinal cord had been traumatized 5 seconds before the head shot. Without a functional spinal cord, the spasmodic muscular convulsions seen in head-traumatized victims cannot be induced. Sturdivan acknowledged in testimony that if the President’s spinal cord had been severed by the earlier shot to the base of the neck, then the neuromuscular reaction that he had postulated could not have happened. (Hear No Evil, pp. 334-335)
. . . the X-rays indicate that the missile track proceeds toward the midline of the body. This analysis is based on the fracture of the transverse process of T-1. . . . (7 HSCA 93)
(440) The panel agrees that the tissue disruption due to the temporary cavity created by passage of a high or intermediate velocity missile might have produced fractures of the transverse processes of one or several of the lower cervical and/or upper thoracic vertebrae in President Kennedy's neck, as indicated by the postmortem X-rays. There are significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae which would receive tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile. A direct grazing missile impact may have occurred, but it would not have been necessary to cause the damage visible in the X-rays. (7 HSCA 171)
The FPP simply ducked the problem of the injury to JFK’s spinal cord 5 seconds before the head was struck by a bullet. This would have made it impossible for Sturdivan’s neurospasm to occur, as Dr. Thomas notes:
Sturdivant used a false choice to avoid the problem. He said if the spinal cord had been severed, then there could have been no neurospasm, and then he said that the cord could not have been severed because Kennedy grasped at his throat.
But it is not a choice between an undamaged spinal cord and a severed spinal cord. If a spinal cord experiences substantial trauma, neurospasms cannot be induced, as Dr. Thomas points out, and the FPP acknowledged that the spinal cord was damaged by the bullet that hit the back. The FPP said the T-1 transverse process was fractured, and that this damage is indicated in the autopsy x-rays:
Notice the point that there are “significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae” that would receive “tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile,” and that the damage visible in the x-rays—the fracture of the T-1 transverse process--might not have even been caused by a direct grazing missile. The FPP did not venture to explain how a neurospasm could have occurred after the spine received such damage, and Sturdivant ducked the issue by his severed-spine-vs.-intact-spine false choice.
No one knows is that injury would prevent the neuromuscular spasm. My layman’s eye shows the elbows held very high immediately after z222, but gradually coming down by z312, showing the effects of this bullet was fading away within a few seconds, as sometimes happens after trauma to the spinal cord. Temporary paralysis is common in American football, which goes away in a minute or two, or longer.
The spinal cord was not severed. Tiny chips were dislodged from near the end of a thin fin of bone of one vertebra, but not severed. I don’t think Mr. Sturdivant claimed the President grasped at his throat. I’m sure he would go with Dr. Lattimer’s opinion, that President Kennedy was in the Thorburn position, immediately after the shot at z222. In my layman’s eye, this position was going away by z312, as trauma caused to the spinal cord can be temporary in some cases.
Thumb1: The arms do appear to be dropping.
Abnormal posturing is an involuntary flexion or extension of the arms and legs, indicating severe brain injury.
You know that's false, or else you can't read. As I've pointed out three or four times now, not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions, but Sturdivan identified JFK's alleged neuromuscular reaction as a decerebrate reaction. I've already gone over this ground for you in detail and quoted Sturdivan several times in the process.
First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead. The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction
Now, if you will look up at the forehead of the goat you may see a very small white spot, which was not visible on the last frame. If you can't, don't worry about it. What it is is the bullet entering the head of the goat. And if I can make sure that I have it going forward now. Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen.
“About a second” equals about 1,000 milliseconds. There are 1,000 milliseconds in 1 second. So, if the goat began to react “about a second after the shot,” then it began to react about 1,000 milliseconds after the shot. We can reasonably infer that when Sturdivan said "about a second," he meant 800-1100 milliseconds, or perhaps 800-1000 milliseconds, or perhaps 900-1000 milliseconds.
Sturdivan was nice enough to explain that the 24 fps film was a “normal” view and “real time”:
Sturdivan then explained that the second sequence, which is the one that Elliott has been citing, was taken at 2,400 fps, and that in that 2,400-fps film, yes, the goat’s reaction begins about 40 milliseconds, or “four one-hundredths,” after bullet impact:
“Mystery” solved! I say “mystery” because I was frankly a bit baffled by the seemingly impossible speed of the goat’s reaction in the film that Elliott cited. I attributed it to the many differences between goat and human neurobiology and neurophysics (not to mention that the goat’s reaction movements differ markedly from JFK’s). But I also read that goat/sheep/dog/horse and human neuromuscular reaction times are similar—not identical, but similar. Every source I checked said that the fastest human neuromuscular reactions ranged in speed from 100 milliseconds in a few cases to around 200-600 milliseconds in most cases.
Lattimer was a fraud who was repeatedly caught misrepresenting his findings and experiments, misrepresenting his sources, rigging his experiments, making erroneous statements, and in a few cases simply making up stuff out of thin air, e.g., his hoax about the Thorburn position.
The other traditional explanation for the head snap has been the "neuromuscular reaction." This was first proposed to the HSCA not by any neuroscience specialist, but by a wound ballistics expert based on his viewing old films of goats being shot in the head. To date no official testimony has been obtained from appropriate specialists (the neuroscientists) on this question. At the very least, interspecies differences in neurophysiology would leave this conclusion open at least to some doubt. In addition, the usual reaction to such brain trauma is not the highly directed movement observed in the Zapruder film but rather random muscular activity. Even Alvarez concluded that the highly directional recoil seen in the Zapruder film required the application of an external force.
Yet another objection to the decerebrate rigidity invoked by the HSCA is the time of onset; even the HSCA admitted that this would develop only after several minutes. I have been unable to find any literature references that even hint that this reaction could occur within milliseconds in human subjects-as is required for the head snap as seen in the film. Furthermore, in a large collaborative study (A.E. Walker, Cerebral Death, 1981, p. 33) with over 500 patients who experienced cerebral death, 70% were limp when observed just before death and an additional 10% became limp at about the time of death. At the very least, therefore, based on all of these considerations, the attempt by the HSCA to implicate a neuromuscular reaction is open to serious doubt. Moreover, the minimum requirement has never been met-the appropriate experts have never been officially consulted.
An additional argument against a neuromuscular reaction is that the observed reaction in the film is much too fast to fit with such a reflex. By the analysis of more than one study, within the space of one Zapruder frame interval (55 msec), the head clearly moves backward. Typical human reflex times are 114 to 112 second (250 to 500 msec). This is an extraordinary discrepancy-a factor of 5 to 10, which, all by itself, makes this scenario quite unlikely. (Assassination Science, p. 281, available at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf)
The other explanation offered by Warren Commission supporters-the neuromuscular reaction-has never received any credible support from appropriate experts in the neurosciences. The many arguments against it are also recounted in Assassination Science (1998, pp. 279-284). Nothing new has emerged to resuscitate this idea. (Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, p. 343)
"The motion of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion, but the visible blow-out of tissue and bony fragments in frame 313 and subsequent frames do conclusively indicate the bullet came from behind. The head motion subsequently is interpreted as due to involuntary muscle extension (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=10&tab=page) and not due to the direction of the injury."
--Dr. Fred Hodges (http://www.ajnr.org/content/29/1/e1), Chief of Neuroradiology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, President of the Society of American Neuroradiology, and later Professor of Radiology at Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.
Neuroradiology (https://www.asnr.org/asnr/about-us/) is the clinical sub-specialty concerned with the diagnostic radiology of diseases of the central nervous system, brain, head and neck, through the use of x-ray, MRI, CT and angiography.
====================================================================================
"Immediately after the shot through the head the President took rather abruptly an almost erect position before slumping over to the left. This straightening is to be considered a sudden opisthotonic reflex movement due to decerebration." (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32024#relPageId=9&tab=page)
-- Richard Lindenberg, M.D (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31999), Director of Neuropathology for the State of Maryland, Clinical Professor in Forensic Pathology and Lecturer in Neuroanatomy at University of Maryland
Neuropathology (https://www.vumc.org/pmi/division-neuropathology) is the study of diseases of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves.
Yes, but a Chief of Neuroradiology at John Hopkins won’t rank as high as a Professor of Psychology at Carleton University, in the opinion of Mr. Griffith, I bet. Heck, I doubt Dr. Hodges ranks as high as an entomologist. Dr. Hodges had an opinion that Mr. Griffith disagrees with, and that reason alone thoroughly discredits him.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Thorburn+position
You're not being honest with yourself or with us. Sturdivan specified that it took about 1 second from the time of the shot to the time that the goat reached decerebrate rigidity. The decerebrate rigidity being the terminus of the decerebrate reaction.
It should first be noted that William Hoffman was a Physics Graduate student in the 1960’s. Perfectly competent to make estimates of movement from the Zapruder film. Making accurate estimates is just what a Physics Graduate student is supposed to be good at, and would have a lot of experience at this. He was hired by Josiah Thompson for this work because he had the skills, to make the measurements that he hoped would prove a frontal shooter, and publish this data in his upcoming book “Six Seconds in Dallas”. And Mr. Hoffman would almost certainly have been unaware of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis so he would not have been consciously or unconsciously adjusting his measurements to match it. It would impossible to find such an expert today that one was confident that he had not heard of this hypothesis and did not already have an opinion, one way or the other.
On the question of whether the neuromuscular spasm occurred, or not, my layman opinion is:
The Zapruder film shows it did.
There is no other explanation for what it shows.
The motion of Kennedy’s body in frames 312-313 is totally inconsistent with the impact of a bullet from above and behind. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion consistent with the laws of physics is that the bullet was fired from a position forward and to the right of the President.
G. Paul Chambers has shown that JFK’s head snap is fully consistent with a frontal shot. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/Omissions_and_Miscalculations_of_Nicholas_Nalli.pdf)
1.The Head moves forward from z312-z313.
Consistent with a bullet strike from behind. This can clearly be seen in the Zapruder film.
It is impossible to tell if the head moved with constant momentum, because this movement
does not last over one frame interval, but there is no reason to assume it didn’t, all followed
the laws of conservation of momentum.
Not only is this what my layman eye shows me, but is what the careful measurements of
Physics graduate student William Hoffman show.
2. The Head starts moving back in the z313-z314.
This shows the backwards movement started 40 to 80 milliseconds after the bullet impact. Consistent with the 1948 U. S. Army film of the goat, which Larry Sturdivant testified started moving after 40 milliseconds.
The careful measurements of Physics graduate student William Hoffman show the head started moving backwards one frame later.
3. The Head moves backwards from z313-z315, with ever increasing speed.
This is not consistent with movement caused by a “push” from a bullet from the front,
which should deposit all its momentum while within the head, within a one to two milliseconds,
after which the head should move with constant momentum, not continuously pick up speed.
Not only is this what my layman eye shows me, but is what the careful measurements of
Physics graduate student William Hoffman show.
4. From z315-z318, President Kennedy’s right arm starts to move up.
During this interval it moved up 6 inches at the elbow. It moved up 3 inches from z315-316. This movement
Is consistent with a sudden speed upward of 3 mph was imparted to the right arm, and then was solely
Under the influence of gravity, which should cause it to reach its apex during z318-z319, then fall down.
This is exactly what the Zapruder film shows me. The Head moving back early, followed by the right arm,
Is exactly what one would expect if the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis is true. The view of his left arm is
blocked, so we cannot tell if it moved upwards as well, or was perhaps held down by Mrs. Kennedy, assisted
by the weaker pair of muscles in President Kennedy which would try to pull the arm down.
William Hoffman did not comment on this movement, but it is clear for anyone to see in the
Zapruder film.
Clearly, if one is guided by what one sees in the Zapruder film, the muscles of the President were activated as a result of being shot in the head and are totally consistent with the Zapruder film
A motion picture was shown of a goat being shot in the head, causing all the goat's muscles to go into a violent, involuntary spasm. Clearly, this does not appear to be what happened to Kennedy, whose whole body appears to go limp as he is thrown backward. There is no splaying of his limbs, as in the shooting of the goat. (Reasonable Doubt, p. 130)
, and not consistent with “simply physics” and “pushes” from bullets, unless there were a stream of bullets striking him in the head, one bullet per frame during z313-z318, plus another bullet from below striking the right elbow.
No one knows is that injury would prevent the neuromuscular spasm. My layman’s eye shows the elbows held very high immediately after z222, but gradually coming down by z312, showing the effects of this bullet was fading away within a few seconds, as sometimes happens after trauma to the spinal cord. Temporary paralysis is common in American football, which goes away in a minute or two, or longer.
The spinal cord was not severed. Tiny chips were dislodged from near the end of a thin fin of bone of one vertebra, but not severed. I don’t think Mr. Sturdivant claimed the President grasped at his throat. I’m sure he would go with Dr. Lattimer’s opinion, that President Kennedy was in the Thorburn position, immediately after the shot at z222. In my layman’s eye, this position was going away by z312, as trauma caused to the spinal cord can be temporary in some cases.
There is no way Dr. Thomas or anyone else can know this. It is impossible to say how much the spinal cord was damaged. It would be impossible to wound an animal, with the same amount of damage the President had at z222, because no one knows how much damage was caused, then see if the neuromuscular spasm occurs five seconds later with a shot through the brain. Dr Thomas is simply making unwarranted assumptions.
. . . the X-rays indicate that the missile track proceeds toward the midline of the body. This analysis is based on the fracture of the transverse process of T-1. . . . (7 HSCA 93)
(440) The panel agrees that the tissue disruption due to the temporary cavity created by passage of a high or intermediate velocity missile might have produced fractures of the transverse processes of one or several of the lower cervical and/or upper thoracic vertebrae in President Kennedy's neck, as indicated by the postmortem X-rays. There are significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae which would receive tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile. A direct grazing missile impact may have occurred, but it would not have been necessary to cause the damage visible in the X-rays. (7 HSCA 171)
Dr. Lattimer had superior training, and superior experience treating wounded soldiers, then either Dr. Zacharko or Dr. Thomas, on dealing with the question of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis.
As has been pointed out many times to you, Kennedy's reaction/movement is unlike anything we see in the goat's neurospasm reaction.
So how on earth can you claim the Zapruder film "shows" JFK's backward movement was caused by neuromuscular reaction, especially given the fact that science tells us that human neurospasms involving similar movement cannot occur sooner than 100 milliseconds after stimulus?
"No other explanation"??? Really? The HSCA FPP gave the jet-effect theory as its first explanation for JFK's movement, followed by the neurospasm theory, and then, to cover all bases, said both phenomena might have been involved. The FPP simply ignored the problem that there is no evidence that a human neurospasm involving the movement of that much weight could occur in 40 milliseconds.
And of course there are other explanations for JFK's movement, but your version of the assassination won't allow you to accept them. If the bullet that struck Connally in the back could push his right shoulder down and forward, a bullet could have caused JFK's head to move backward, as a long list of physicists have observed. Dr. James Riddle, who was a physicist at UCLA:
In the 1990s, I interviewed several aeronautical engineers about the jet-effect theory. They all thought it was laughable. And, of course, Dr. Chambers has demolished the jet-effect theory.
On 13 separate instances, Nalli refers to the work of the late John K. Lattimer, MD, who spent decades using fraudulent means to prove the conclusions of the Warren Commission. His demonstrations of the jet effect and the single bullet theory were so amateurish they would have been scorned as junior high school science projects. . . .
Before getting into Lattimer’s own jet effect, you may wish to see something more immediately comprehensible. The scam revealed below was designed to solve the big problem concerning the location of Kennedy’s back wound: according to clear photographic evidence, it was too low to comport with the single-bullet theory. A bullet from the sixth floor of the Depository Building (the “sniper’s nest”) would not have been able to enter that low, then go up to exit Kennedy’s throat, which was at a higher level. And if it did not exit the throat, this would have to mean the throat wound was caused by a bullet coming from the front. So Lattimer created a model of a skeleton showing the bullet entering several inches higher than it actually did. . . . [even several inches higher than it appears in the autopsy photo of the back]
Lattimer said the largest bone fragment “exploded upward and forward due to the power of this destructive bullet and was forced 40 feet in the air by the explosion of the brain.”
Fact: That large fragment, along with two smaller ones, was found in the back of Kennedy’s limousine. Its journey was only in inches, not feet. You can see it on Kennedy’s right shoulder in the famous Moorman Polaroid photo. And, in several frames of the Zapruder film, you can watch as it makes its way down Kennedy’s back. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, famous for leaping upon the limousine to protect Mrs. Kennedy, saw a large fragment detach from Kennedy’s head. . . .
Lattimer said that in all experiments, his and those performed by the Army for the Warren Commission, there was a “complete separation” of the copper shell and the lead core, which is what he claims happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the head.
Fact: The bullet alleged to have hit JFK in the head broke into two fragments — and both were jacketed. (https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/05/31/scientist-neutralizes-jfks-back-and-to-the-left-or-does-he/)
First, regarding John Lattimer, I wholly concur with what Milicent Cranor said about him recently in her critique of Nicholas Nalli's attempt to resurrect the jet-effect theory:
Second, and to my main point, I am undecided about the degree, if any, of forward movement of JFK's head in Z312-313. I know that Josiah Thompson really wanted to believe that the head moves forward by 2.3 inches in 40 milliseconds in Z312-313, because he correctly viewed the movement as potential evidence of two nearly simultaneous head shots, one from the rear followed a split-second later by one from the front. But Dr. Snyder eventually convinced Thompson that this does not occur. On the other hand, Dr. Chambers believes the head does move forward in Z312-313.
Personally, I would love to see convincing evidence that the forward head movement is real and that its speed is at least close to the speed measured by Hoffman (2.3 inches/40 milliseconds). Such a movement would make the already silly neurospasm and jet-effect theories even more ludicrous, and would also constitute strong evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.
In any event, we know that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head was not the kind of bullet that Oswald allegedly used. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm ammo, but the rear head entry wound was only 6.0 mm wide. The WC tried to explain away the physical impossibility of a bullet creating an entry wound smaller than its own diameter by claiming that the smaller entrance wound resulted from the “elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it"! One can only wonder why this amazing "elastic recoil" of skull bone did not occur in the WC's own ballistics tests conducted by Dr. Alfred Olivier.
Question:
If the Jet Effect Theory is false, if it can never happen, how do you explain taped melons heading back toward the direction of the rifle that shot it?
Griffith seems to be able to dig up any number of "experts" to support any and every argument but unfortunately they mostly seem to be wrong.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hP9CMpQ1/coconut-jet-effect.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y63p3VV5/bottle-jet-effect.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TY87rZ1P/melon-jet-effect.gif)
JohnM
Griffith seems to be able to dig up any number of "experts" to support any and every argument but unfortunately they mostly seem to be wrong.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hP9CMpQ1/coconut-jet-effect.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y63p3VV5/bottle-jet-effect.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TY87rZ1P/melon-jet-effect.gif)
JohnM
Milicent Cranor is bitter hag. And a screwball.
The forward movement of the head is an established and irrefutable fact.
The 6 mm wide dimension was of the wound in the scalp, not the skull. That wound was a laceration. A tear. No dimensions were given for the entry wound in the skull.
Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspects of the skull. (CE 387, p. 4)
Lattimer was the screwball, not Cranor.
I notice you did not address any of the egregious errors that Cranor documented in Lattimer's writings (and there are plenty more where those came from).
Here is Lattimer's SBT model, which shows the back wound above the throat wound, far above where even the autopsy photo shows it:
(http://miketgriffith.com/files/lattimersbtmodel.jpg)
Now compare Lattimer's model with the autopsy photo of the back:
(http://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkautopsyphotoback.jpg)
Lattimer's missile track just needs to be lowered a small amount. And the skeleton model ought to be tilted a bit towards the front. You too lazy to do that?
The autopsy photo shows an entry wound on the base of the back of the neck (how it is described in the autopsy report) at the C7 level and exit wound at the T1 level. The 14cm measurements ("B") are in the autopsy report and the 2 1/8" measurement ("A") is in the Clark Panel Review. The President's shoulders are elevated due to postmortem rigidity
The autopsy photo would be the same as Lattimer's model after a honest and diligent person made a few minor common-sense corrections.
Uh, I'm not in the habit of messing with other people's models. They are what they are. Lattimer knew better, but he lied about it anyway. And your answer is to blame me for not adjusting Lattimer's model! That's rich.
Oh my goodness, I almost forgot that some of you guys are still peddling the single-bullet theory! Did you miss the disclosures in the 1990s from which we learn from numerous sources that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point, that the doctors removed the chest organs and rolled the body over to see where the probe was going, that they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining, and that the bullet track went downward rather sharply?
Any honest and intelligent person would factor in this evidence and would also refer to the hard physical evidence of the holes in JFK's shirt and coat. JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat.
Any honest an intelligence person would also look at the autopsy face sheet and the death certificate, both of which put the wound below T1, at around T3--and the face sheet was marked "verified" (the WC removed the "verified" notation when they published the sheet).
Too lazy or just plain stupid to make a minor effort to consolidate what's in front of you.
You call LNers stuck in the past. And you bring up the decades-old nonsense about Kennedy's tailor-made clothing having some magical quality that prevented bunching.
The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky.
The face sheet says the wound has the 14cm measurements. That's plotted on my 3D graphic and it works out to the C7 level. The face sheet was prepared by Boswell would stated in 1966 that the markings were not to be considered accurate, but the measurements were.
"Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale?" ( Link (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/toscale.htm) )
I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly? This has been known for decades. Both holes put the wound about 5 inches below the collar line.
Quality graphics once again John Thumb1:. It should be pointed out that the picture showing the bunched up jacket was taken literally seconds before the shot to JFK's back. How can this argument about the clothes determining the position of the entrance wound still exist?
How can this argument about the clothes determining the position of the entrance wound still exist?
Did any of your researchers from the dark ages allow for the fact that Kennedy's jacket on Elm street shows bunching that extends upwards to the top of the jacket's collar? Oops!
All the more reason to be skeptical that the shirt was bunched up an equal amount. Besides, Croft was taken at Z-160. Nobody claims that a bullet hit him that early. Where's the "jacket bunch" in Willis?
Not this crap again, from Croft's photo until Kennedy disappears behind the sign his right arm is continually waving and when he emerges from behind the sign the jacket is still bunched and on top of that his upper torso shows no signs of being adjusted to allow the jacket to fall.
"No signs of being adjusted" is a copout.
Both Mr. Haag and Mr. Sturdivan argue that either a “jet effect” caused by a shot from behind, or a “neuromuscular reaction,” caused the President’s rearward head motion after Zapruder frame 313. Both scoff that a grassy knoll shot might explain it. Because JFK’s reaction to the fatal shot is perhaps the most important and contentious issue raised by Messrs’ Haag and Mr. Sturdivan, the topic deserves a detailed discussion.
As for what Mr. Haag has called the “Newtonian physics” explanation for Kennedy’s rearward jolt - Luis Alvarez’s so-called “jet effect” - Mr. Haag would have done well to ask his colleague about the Nobel Laurate’s conclusion. “The question is,” Mr. Larry Sturdivan has written, “Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.”
Readers should pay more attention to Dr. Alvarez’s published claims than his credentials. (Just as he had “proved” what the government preferred - that a jet effect from Oswald’s shot had swung JFK backward, Dr. Alvarez also once said that he had “proved” what the U.S. and Israeli government falsely claimed was true: that there had been no South African/Israeli nuclear test in the Indian Ocean – the politically sensitive, so-called “Vela Incident.” Dr. Alvarez’s claim was subsequently shredded by private, government and military investigators.)
Re JFK, in the prestigious American Journal of Physics Dr. Alvarez wrote, ““It is important to stress the fact that a taped melon was our a priori best mock-up of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test … If we had used the ‘Edison Test,’ and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our firing experiments could reasonably be criticized. But as the tests were actually conducted, I believe they show it is most probable that the shot in 313 came from behind the car.”
First, surely AFTE members do not live in a universe in which a soft-shelled melon, even a tape-wrapped one, is the “best mock-up” of a bony human skull, particularly when said melon weighs about half what a human head weighs. Second, it was no less than Warren loyalist John Lattimer, MD who revealed that, apparently unable to get Mr. Haag’s preferred “Newtonian explanation” using jacketed Mannlicher Carcano bullets, Dr. Alvarez instead shot soft-nosed, .30-06 rounds. But not just any old .30-06 rounds, with their ~2800 ft/second muzzle velocity; he “hot-loaded” his cartridges to 3000 ft/sec, and only then got his famous “jet effect.” Worse, Dr. Alvarez withheld key information about his tests.
Dr. Josiah Thompson was recently given access to the photo file of the shooting tests by one of Dr. Alvarez’s former graduate students, Paul Hoch, Ph.D. It turns out that the Alvarez team shot at lots of targets – coconuts, pineapples, water-filled jugs, etc. The only objects that demonstrated recoil were his “a priori best mock-up of a head,” the disanalogous melons. AFTE readers are invited to scour Dr. Alvarez’s paper, which we’ve linked to, for his mentioning anywhere these other, inconvenient shooting results. We won’t insult the intelligence of AFTE readers by recounting what happened when Alvarez’s team shot targets that were more analogous to skulls: coconuts.
Finally, Mr. Haag proffers John Lattimer, MD’s skull-shooting tests as proof of the jet effect that his own colleague from Edgewood had disproved and dismissed. Using a Mannlicher Carcano and firing downward at filled human skulls perched atop ladders, Dr. Lattimer’s skulls recoiled. In his book, Hear No Evil, Donald Thomas, Ph.D. explained why: “Lattimer’s diagrams reveal that the incoming angle of the bullet trajectory sloped downwards relative to the top of the ladder, with the justification that the assassin was shooting from an elevated position … But the downward angle would have had the effect of driving the skulls against the top of the ladder with a predictable result – a rebound.” (A video clip of Dr. Lattimer’s shooting tests shows the ladder rocking forward as the skull is driven against the top of the ladder.)
Clearly, the forward momentum Mr. Sturdivan had shown pushing his test skulls forward was what was being transmitted to the ladder, causing it to move forward while the skull rebounded. Unlike Dr. Lattimer’s skulls, the base of JFK’s skull and his chin were not resting on a hard, flat surface. (It is also worth mention that the “wounds” sustained by the blasted skulls were not, as Dr. Lattimer reported, “very similar to those of the President.”)
The results of Dr. Lattimer’s tests are in sharp contrast not only to those Mr. Sturdivan reported from the Biophysics Lab, but also to similar, skull-shooting tests conducted by University of Kansas’s pathology professor, Dr. John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., F.A.C.P. Rather than shooting down at skulls perched atop a flat surface, Dr. Nichols shot WCC ammo at both melons and cadaver material that were suspended by a wire. (Warren loyalist Paul Hoch, Ph.D. has said that this was the proper way to test for “jet effect” - personal communication.) Professor Nichols’ finding? “This study did not demonstrate the jet effect and would lead us to reject the jet effect as the basis for President Kennedy’s backward head movement.”
Inasmuch as Dr. Lattimer achieved such different results than Edgewood Arsenal and Dr. Nichols, Dr. Thomas observed, “this obvious difference in design would appear to be the explanation for the stark difference in the results.” Dr. Thomas also pointed out that, “Lattimer’s photographs of skulls do not show a jet plume. Instead they show a Kronlein Schuss effect with a blowout of material through the top of the skull. Lattimer did not achieve jet effect.”
JFK’s Rearward Lunge and Neuromuscular Reaction
Inasmuch as Dr. Thomas, Dr. Nichols, and Mr. Sturdivan are surely right that “jet effect” cannot explain Kennedy’s lunge, the only explanation Mr. Haag and Mr. Sturdivan have left that leaves Oswald standing in the dock is some variant of a neurological spasm, or as Mr. Sturdivan, who has no credentials in medicine, neurophysiology, etc., described it to the House Select Committee, a “neuromuscular reaction.” Without suppling a citation, as per his custom, Mr. Sturdivan writes in his riposte that “Dr. Michael Carey calls (JFK’s motion) a ‘decerebrate reaction. Look it up.’” We did look it up, if only to confirm what we already knew. We invite AFTE readers to do the same. We also looked up the fact that Mr. Sturdivan has elsewhere described JFK’s movement as a “decorticate reaction,” as if the two reactions were the same thing. Setting aside the fact they are not, JFK’s motions are neither.
In decorticate posturing the patient’s back arches backwards, the legs extend and the arms flex inward. In decerebrate posturing the patient’s back arches and the legs extend (as they do in decorticate posturing), but the arms extend out parallel to the body. If one compares his posture at Zapruder frame 230, or in any frame after the back shot but before the head shot, JFK’s arms are flexed inward toward his neck, reacting to the first shot. In the frames following the head shot, JFK’s head moves backward but his back does not arch; JFK’s legs do not extend. Nor do his arms flex or extend, but fall limply toward his lap as his upper, probably paralyzed, body follows his blasted cranium rearward.
Furthermore, in the frames following frame 327, 7/10ths seconds after the head shot, JFK’s head starts moving forward, his back then follows forward, too, but at a slower rate than his cranium, which moves forward at as fast a rate, or faster, than his head lunges backward after Zapruder frame 313. It thus “flexed” forward the same way it had “extended” backward: Kennedy’s back followed JFK’s head as it abruptly rocked forward. At no time did Kennedy’s back arch backward, nor did his legs extend, the basic requirements of decorticate and decerebrate posturing.
From the web, below are images contrasting decerebrate and decorticate posturing [click the essay’s URL at end of this quote to see the images]. JFK assumed neither posture in reaction to the head shot.
Decorticate posture results from damage to one or both corticospinal tracks. The upper arms are adducted and the forearms flexed, with the wrists and fingers flexed on the Decerebrate posture results from damage to the upper brain stem. The upper arms are adducted and the forearms arms are extended, with the wrists pronated and the fingers flexed. The legs are stiffly extended, with plantar flexion of the feet.
Can Momentum Transfer From a Grassy Knoll Shot Explain JFK’s Rearward Jolt?
Given that the President’s motions are neither decorticate nor decerebrate reactions, and given that a “jet effect” cannot explain them, what then of the possibility momentum transfer from a grassy knoll shot explains JFK’s backward snap?
In considering this option, we will use Mr. Sturdivan’s own work, a man with whom we do not always disagree. We agree with the testimony he gave concerning the skull-shooting tests conducted by Army’s Biophysics Lab that the House Select Committee. “All 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing,” Mr. Sturdivan swore, “They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet … .” (They saw no recoil from a “jet effect.”) Since jacketed bullets deliver momentum to skulls, it’s likely that skulls struck with soft-nosed, non-jacketed hunting rounds that flatten on impact would impart even more. We also agree with Mr. Sturdivan that “a similar explosion would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction” – from, say, a tangential shot from the right front. However we disagree with the faulty scientific premises Mr. Sturdivan used to argue that a shot from the right front could not have deposited sufficient rearward momentum to move JFK backward.
While referring to his momentum calculations derived from the skull shooting tests, he testified, “As we can see from the chart, this velocity of 1.2 feet per second is not the kind of velocity that would throw the President bodily around backwards, forwards, or in any direction no matter which direction the bullet came from. The deposit of momentum from the bullet is not sufficient to cause any dramatic movement in any direction.” (In his book, Mr. Sturdivan reported a higher velocity: “the (test) skull … moves forward at approximately 3 feet/sec, just as it must from the momentum deposited by the bullet.”) Mr. Sturdivan thus argued, as he testified, that a shot from behind would have caused “slight movement toward the front, which would very rapidly be damped by the connection of the neck with the body.” We will address two issues here.
First, it was author Josiah Thompson, Ph.D. who was the first to claim that the Zapruder film revealed that JFK’s head moved fleetingly forward between the clear frame 312 and the very blurred frame 313. However, additional studies done during the past several years have convinced Dr. Thompson and others that smear artifact in frame 313 gives the impression of forward motion that is uncertain and may be illusory. Second, Mr. Sturdivan’s conclusion that momentum transfer could not explain JFK’s skull motion was based on experiments using modestly powered Mannlicher Carcano rounds weighing 162 grains (0.023 lbs) that were fired from a distance of 90 yards. And he assumed the fatal bullet deposited half of its momentum when it struck Kennedy’s 15 pound skull. These assumptions are unreasonable, and they stack the deck. (For starters, why assume a grassy knoll gunman would use a Mannlicher Carcano?)
In his book, Hear No Evil, Don Thomas, Ph.D. has dissected Mr. Sturdivan’s analysis in considerable detail. With permission, we quote Dr. Thomas in extenso.
Mr. Sturdivan’s calculation, Dr. Thomas notes, was “derived indirectly from his tests shooting human skulls with a Mannlicher-Carcano. The bullet’s velocity at a distance of 90 yards was 1600 feet per second according to Sturdivan (in fact, the Army’s data indicated a value closer to 1800 fps) (sic). Sturdivan then divided this number in half on the supposition (unstated) (sic) that the bullet would deposit only half of its momentum. This supposition was apparently based on his observation that a velocity of something like ‘one foot-per-second’ was imparted to test skulls when shot with the Carcano. Somehow, Mr. Sturdivan managed to miss the point that the rearward movement might have involved a shot origination from the grassy knoll only 30 yards in front of the target, with consequently less loss of velocity from air resistance, than from a position 90 yards behind the President. It also seemed not to have occurred to Sturdivan that the President might have been shot from the grassy knoll with a different rifle than the modestly powered Mannlicher-Carcano….
“For the purposes of this discussion let us suppose that the hypothetical killer on the grassy knoll was armed with a .30-.30 rifle … (which) happens to have a muzzle velocity (2200 ft/ sec) very close to that of the Carcano, and fires a 170 grain bullet, slightly larger than the Carcano bullet. At 30 yards the projectile would have struck at a velocity of approximately 2100 fps … the momentum on impact with the head would be 50 ft-lb/sec. If one postulates a hunting bullet (in accordance with the X-ray evidence) (sic) which is designed to mushroom and deposit its energy at the wound instead of a fully jacketed bullet, we will allow a deposit of 80% of the momentum, leaving a residual velocity for the exiting bullet. This results in a momentum applied to the target of 40 ft-lb/sec; considerably more than Sturdivan’s stingy allowance of 18.4 ft-lb/sec.
“It is important to realize that at the time Kennedy was struck with the fatal shot at Z-312-3, he had most likely been paralyzed by the shot through the base of the neck (as Mr. Sturdivan admits). Consequently, his head was lolling forward, not supported by the muscles of the neck. This fact tends to minimize the damping effect (that so troubled Mr. Sturdivan) from the absorption of shock by the neck until after the head has snapped back. Assuming a head weight of 12 lbs, the velocity imparted to the head would be approximately 3.3 feet per second … .” (The same speed of the test skulls that Mr. Sturdivan reported in his book, though in JFK’s case it might have even been faster as most estimates put the weight of a human head at 10-11 lbs.)
From the study of the Zapruder film by Josiah Thompson, the observed rearward velocity for the head was roughly 1.6 feet per second after frame 313.
If Mr. Sturdivan is right that jacketed, Western Cartridge Company (WCC) shells moved blasted skulls forward at 3 ft/ sec, imagine how much faster skulls would move if hit with heavier, higher velocity, soft-nosed bullets; perhaps enough not only to move JFK’s skull “back to the left,” but also enough to even nudge his paralyzed upper body backward.
Mr. Haag argued that a “’synchronized’ or concurrent arrival of two bullets (one from the rear and one from the right front) is critical to nearly all conspiracy advocates’ claim of a second shooter.” Although Dr. Wecht has suggested this possibility in the past because of what was then accepted, as our understanding has matured, so has our interpretation of the events in Dealey Plaza. There need not have been two, near-simultaneous shots circa Zapruder 313. It’s more likely that there was just one – fired from the right front, striking tangentially near the top right portion of the President’s skull, with a portion of the bullet being deflected upward and to the left-rear of the limousine. The possibility that a second head shot struck from behind circa Z-327 is a tantalizing possibility, for it would explain why the President’s head swiftly rolled forward after that frame, at a time Mr. Sturdivan believes his “decorticate” or “decerebrate” “neuromuscular reaction” should have had him arching backward. (https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf)
I’ve been saving this, and perhaps now is the time to share it, blah blah blah....
If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner, I have no desire for further discussion with you.
Well, umm, tailor-made shirts are designed to fit the person well. Another "magical quality" that would have prevented Kennedy's shirt from bunching significantly would have been that the lower part of his back was pinning the shirt against the seat. Plus, photos and film of JFK 2-15 seconds before the first shot show that his coat was only slightly bunched.
I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly? This has been known for decades. Both holes put the wound about 5 inches below the collar line.
If the autopsy sheet is marked "verified," one logically assumes that it has been, well, "verified." And isn't it just a whopping coincidence that the death certificate, which was also marked "verified," puts the back wound at T3? So Boswell and Burkley couldn't tell the difference between C7/T1 and T3? Really?
Dr. Ebersole thought the wound was closer to T4. Was he blind too?
Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the back wound was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Another blind man?
Sibert and O'Neill both put the back wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, as did the FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy. The ARRB released the diagrams that Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill drew of the back wound for the HSCA. I trust you know what those diagrams show, right? They put the wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, just as does the face sheet and the death certificate and Dr. Ebersole and Clint Hill. What a coincidence, hey?
I hope you can regain your civility, or I won't be responding to you again.
Given your response to my post about Lattimer's model (face sheet, tailored-shirts, etc.) was all diversion that showed some effort, and that you're an unceasing Trump defender, I going with "too stupid" rather than "too lazy." [Lame, erroneous, and evasive lone-gunman arguments snipped]
Given your response to my post about Lattimer's model (face sheet, tailored-shirts, etc.) was all diversion that showed some effort, and that you're an unceasing Trump defender, I going with "too stupid" rather than "too lazy."
Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_3.html)
The measurements of Itek and Thompson are almost inconsistent with a shot from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The motion is so large that nearly all the momentum of the bullet is needed to account for it. However, quantitatively Thompson and Itek were mistaken. The apparent motion between Zapruder frames Z312 and Z313 is an artifact of the blurring of frame Z313. This is not to say that JFK’s head did not move forward between frames Z312 and Z313, but that the Z313 blur obscures the motion so that it cannot be measured using these frames. The actual forward motion (~0.3 meter/sec) can be estimated by comparing Z313 to Z314. It is about 1/3 the value obtained using the Itek or Thompson measurements—consistent with a Carcano bullet imparting ~1/3 its momentum and ~1/2 its energy. (“Case Still Open: Skepticism and the Assassination of JFK,” Skeptic, volume 6, number 4, 1998, p. 53)
. . . these re-enactments as well as associated documents and eyewitness statements, place the final head shot (the second, in my view) about 30 to 40 feet farther down Elm Street than Z-313. Warren Commission data tables actually place the final shot at 294 ft. from the "sniper's" window, not the 265 ft. that corresponds to Z313. (“The Zapruder Film Controversy,” p. 24, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf)
The distinct possibility that there was a final shot, one which struck the President after Zapruder frame 313, has been once again raised by studying the precise measurements in the 5 December 1963, survey plat, reexamining the testimony of Emmett Hudson, comparing the reference in CE-875 that the third shot struck at the "5+00" mark (which was west of Z-313), and looking at CE-2111 which stated the limousine was opposite the manhole cover at the final shot (the manhole cover is west of 313). Secret Service Agent Clint Hill also testified he heard the sound of a shot "just about as I reached it (the limousine)." (p. 258)
It turns out that Dr. Art Snyder, physicist at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory, did not tell Josiah Thompson that there is no forward movement in Z312-313, but that the alleged forward movement of 2.3 inches does not occur. I wish Thompson had made this clear in his 2007 article. However, Thompson did end the paragraph by saying “the two-inch forward movement was just not there”:
Dr. Snyder says the forward head movement in Z312-313 is about 1/3 of the Itek-Thompson value. Snyder measures the forward movement as being about 0.3 meters per second, which equals =0.63 inches in one frame. I quote Snyder:
So instead of the head moving forward 2.3 inches in Z312-313, Snyder says it moves forward about 0.63 inches.
(Take 0.3 meters per second. Take the Zapruder camera speed, which was 18.3 frames per second, or 18.3 frames per 1,000 milliseconds. Divide 0.3 meters by 18.3. That equals 0.16 meters in one frame, or 0.63 inches in one frame.)
So if a bullet from the rear could move the head 0.63 inches forward in one frame (55 milliseconds), why could not a bullet from the front have moved the head backward at the same speed?
The idea of a shot to the head after Z313 has surprisingly good evidence on its side. The first two reenactments in Dealey Plaza put the head shot as occurring when the limousine was 294 feet from the sixth-floor window, 29 feet farther down the street than the limo was at Z313.
Dr. Mantik observes, Chuck Marler explores the evidence for a post-Z313 head shot in great depth in his chapter in Assassination Science, from which the following is quoted:
The 12/5/1963 survey done by the Secret Service put three marks on Elm Street to represent shots. These marks corresponded approximately to Z208, Z276, and Z358.
Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame, 225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed and the time that frame 225 was filmed?
Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .
Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an opinion as to when the President was hit with the bullet--how much before this point?
Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your mind to a muscle before you can get movement. . . . It takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to full power--to get the muscles to move.
Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film would that be?
Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 at a minimum [i.e., at the latest, and notice this is just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]
Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?
Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224 according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same bullet?
Dr. McCARTHY. No. (Killing the Truth, pp. 235-236)
I told you that if could not maintain civility, I would not respond to you. Go try to find someone else who will sink down to your level. I will not waste time dealing with such juvenile rudeness. Goodbye.
Speaking of human neuromuscular reaction times, the following does not deal with Kennedy’s head movement, but it does deal with the much more modest movement of his right hand that begins in Z225, even if the movement was involuntary. Experts for the prosecution and the defense both agreed that at least 200 milliseconds, or around four Zapruder frames, would have elapsed between bullet impact and JFK’s reaction, even if the movement was reflexive/involuntary.
Dr. Robert Piziali, a wound ballistics expert, stated under cross examination at the 1992 American Bar Association mock Oswald trial that if Kennedy began to react to a wound at Z225, this would mean the bullet could have struck him no later than Z221. Dr. Piziali, who supervised the Failure Analysis research for the 1992 mock Oswald trial, explained there would have been a delay of four frames, or about 200 milliseconds, between the bullet's impact and Kennedy's reaction to it with his right hand. He said a "reflexive reaction" to bullet impact would take "approximately 200 ms” (see trial transcript in Harrison Livingstone, Killing the Truth, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993, pp. 224-236; see also http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12%3Athesingle-bullet%22fact%22).
Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy, testifying for the defense in the 1992 mock Oswald trial, agreed that it would have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames, for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him start to do in Z225:
This agreement by prosecution and defense experts on the time required for Kennedy to involuntarily move his right arm after bullet impact casts further doubt on the specious claim that a neuromuscular reaction could have caused JFK's backward head movement in the space of just 40-50 milliseconds. And this is not to mention the observable fact that Kennedy's reaction looks like nothing like the goat's reaction in the goat films.
Experts for the prosecution and the defense both agreed that at least 200 milliseconds, or around four Zapruder frames, would have elapsed between bullet impact and JFK’s reaction, even if the movement was reflexive/involuntary.
“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.” [https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]
The touch stimulus of 150 milliseconds refers to an external stimulus being applied and the reaction to it. JFK's 'hand snap' is not a reaction, it is a reflex and to imagine there is no difference between a reaction and a reflex displays a deep lack of understanding regarding this issue. The 'hand snap' is a Withdrawal (Nociceptive Flexion) Reflex in response to a stimulus applied directly to the Central Nervous System (CNS). With this type of reflex the time taken for the stimulus to be detected and reach the CNS for processing is eliminated as the stimulus is being applied directly to the CNS. This type of reflex is far quicker than a reaction.
The 200 millisecond measurement you quote is hopelessly outdated and is reflected in your analysis.
Another attempt to poison the well with a completely off-topic smear.
Elliott does that a lot.
Sturdivan's "uninterrupted impulse" theory would also cut the response time in half. However, I'm not fully onboard with that theory. It doesn't accurately account for Connally's rapid reaction. Sturdivan wrongly has Connally reacting later than Kennedy.
Both men are shot through in z224, the time it takes for the bullet to pass through both men is so small we can, for our purposes, consider it instantaneous. In z225 JFK's hand begins to snap shut, this is a reflex that probably indicates the bullet that has passed through him, very close to his spine and high up on his back, has severed one of the plexus of nerves that emanates from this part of the spinal column and are directly connected to the hand.
However, it's not a reaction to the bullet, it's a reflex. We see the reaction of both men to being shot in z226, Kennedy's left elbow is raised into view, his right hand has snapped fully shut and is moving towards his throat. Connally's Stetson begins to shoot up, this is the first moment of the sudden thrashing around and twisting in his seat that can clearly be seen in the full Zfilm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYg0tyRK/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
As an aside, I would urge caution in putting the bullet impact too late. A strike at z224, or even z223, opens the door up to CTers to go to their standard claim “The reactions are too fast to be humanly possible”. Popular for both the z222 and the z312 bullet strike. They would make the same claim about a third strike on the President or the Governor if we LNers believed there was a third strike. Frame 222 is the best estimate. I’m not placing it earlier than it should be, except a CTer might point out that z222 is 110 milliseconds before z224, not 100. Even so, Frame 222 is the best estimate we have, subject to future testing of the nature Dr. Lattimer carried out.
Hi Joe,
The way I'see it at the moment is that the argument for an impact earlier than z224 is the preceding frame in which Connally is sat looking completely untroubled.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGXSML9/z223.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The Croft photo can be fairly accurately synchronised with z160, give or take a few frames. In it we see Connally looking towards his wife, Nellie. If we roll the Zfilm forward from this point and focus on Connally we can just about make out him looking towards his left then turning his head to the right. He stays in this position as he passes behind the Stemmons sign. As he emerges from behind the sign the first good look at him is z223 in which he looks totally calm and composed and his jacket hasn't started to bulge. It seems clear to me he has not been shot. In z224 we see the right-hand side of his jacket beginning to bulge, this is the shot which passed through both men. z225 the beginning of JFK's 'hand snap' reflex, z226 both men begin to react to being shot.
Because I'm so green here I'm not sure what a CTer or a LNer is or what they think, I can only make my judgement off what I'm actually seeing and will only listen to arguments that I find compelling (the Larsen/Graves identification of Gloria Calvery being a good example).
A CTer is an OAKisser
An LNer is an OAKicker
People see the “reactions” that they expect to see when interpreting the Z film. If you think both men were hit by one bullet, then you’ll see a simultaneous reaction. If you think they were hit by separate bullets then you’ll see separate reactions.
The way I'see it at the moment is that the argument for an impact earlier than z224 is the preceding frame in which Connally is sat looking completely untroubled.
The Croft photo can be fairly accurately synchronised with z160, give or take a few frames. In it we see Connally looking towards his wife, Nellie. If we roll the Zfilm forward from this point and focus on Connally we can just about make out him looking towards his left then turning his head to the right. He stays in this position as he passes behind the Stemmons sign. As he emerges from behind the sign the first good look at him is z223 in which he looks totally calm and composed and his jacket hasn't started to bulge. It seems clear to me he has not been shot. In z224 we see the right-hand side of his jacket beginning to bulge, this is the shot which passed through both men. z225 the beginning of JFK's 'hand snap' reflex, z226 both men begin to react to being shot.
Thanks Bill that's really cleared things up ???
Oswald Ass Kisser
Oswald Ass Kicker
Conspiracy Theorist(er)
LNer ??
Actually that doesn't make sense to me. Isn't a CTer a OAKicker?
and will only listen to arguments that I find compelling
An impact at z222 should not cause Connally to show pain in his face by z223. That would be too fast a reaction. So, his face showing no pain at z223 is no reason to reject an impact at z222.
Reaction times are hard to estimate. You can’t just shoot someone to find out. People can claim the reaction should start in 100 milliseconds or 150 milliseconds or 200 milliseconds. There is never going to be a way to test these claims.
How long it takes a coat to move is something that can be tested, as many times as one likes. This is clearly the rational method to estimate when the bullet impact took place. And these tests have been done and show the coat moves 100 milliseconds after the bullet passes through it. I’m not going to overrule these real-world tests just because someone claims, with no real-world supporting evidence, that the face would register pain in 55 milliseconds.
Question:
Should our estimates on when the bullet impact took place be based on reactions we cannot test or on reactions we can test?
A CTer is an OAKisserA heads up for all.
An LNer is an OAKicker
Look, Governor Connally himself said he was positive he was not hit before Z234, and he's the guy who took the hit, who felt it, and who knows his body better than anyone else. The autopsy doctors established at the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point. They had to destroy the first draft of the autopsy report and rewrite it when they realized this would not work for the lone-gunman theory. When Dr. Mantik examined the autopsy x-rays, he found there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine. Dr. Nichols, a professor of pathology, deduced the same fact without the benefit of seeing the x-rays.
The holes in the back of Kennedy's coat and shirt prove the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory--and no, the coat and shirt did not magically bunch up in nearly perfect correspondence to create two overlapping holes that were at least 2 inches lower than the wound. We have numerous witnesses--federal agents, medical technicians, and doctors--who said the back wound was about 5 inches down from the top of the collar, that it was visibly below the top of the shoulder blade. And we have known for years, from a document that was never supposed to be seen--the transcript of the 27 January 1964 WC executive session--that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade. Rankin even referred to a picture (obviously one of the autopsy photos) which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade." But none of this matters to lone-gunman theorists, because they must cling to the absurd single-bullet theory since there can be no lone-gunman theory without it.
Anyway, back to the subject of the thread:
I think objective readers will notice that the WC apologists who are replying in this thread have no good answers for the powerful evidence against the neurospasm theory and the jet-effect theory. They can't even admit that the damage that the HSCA FPP said was done at T1 would have prevented the lightening-quick neuromuscular reaction that they say occurred. Nor will they acknowledge the readily observable fact that Kennedy's reaction to the headshot is nothing like the goat's reaction in the goat films, which makes the neurospasm theory downright silly from the get-go. And the specious nature of their position can be seen in the fact that in one breath they say that a bullet from behind pushed Kennedy's head forward by 0.6 to 2.3 inches in 40 milliseconds but that a bullet from the front could not have caused Kennedy's head to move backward to any degree.
The part of my reply that you edited out in such an heroic fashion referred to the jacket bulging and it was this part of my response I should have emphasised, it is this that demonstrates when the bullet has passed through both men:The only thing I edited out was a line that said “Hi Joe” and the following picture.
Question: Should you critique the complete response or edit it to suit your own needs?
The jacket bulging is an instantaneous mechanical response to an impact. You talk about tests where the bullet passes straight through the jacket which then moves 100 milliseconds later. It is all based on the assumption that the bullet passed cleanly through the jacket. In your earlier post you claim the jacket is moved by the 'debris' that exits Connally's chest. So you are claiming the bullet passes through Connally and the jacket after which the 'debris' waits for 100 milliseconds before exiting:
Question: Do you see the corner you've painted yourself into?
I'm not saying you do, but if anyone believes CE 399 shattered Connally's wrist bone, the thick end of the radius, and came out looking like it did is suffering from 'Magical Thinking'. I accept that some kind of miraculous event may have possibly occurred but I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket. At the moment my intuition is telling me the bullet that passed through JFK and then shattered Connally's rib had lost enough momentum to have difficulty getting through Connally's jacket, causing it to bulge on contact - z224. I need to go to dodgytesting.com to find something that corroborates my hunch.
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just transversed). I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move. The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.
Sounds like a pirate... Arrrrrrgse....it's a Tyranno-sore-arseassarse
LN = Lone nutter = Oswald did it aloneHere I thought the nutters were the ones who believe that.
CT = Conspiracy Theorists = AnyBodyButOswald = A gazillion conspiracy theoriesIt was a cover-up and that is no theory.
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just transversed). I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move. The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.
The right jacket area looked fully extended at z224, so if that is the result of the bullet’s imparted velocity on mass movement (chest debris or the jacket itself), the bullet transiting was a bit earlier.
The jacket may have been in its initial stages of motion as early as z223, but the displacement not quite great enough yet to readily pick out.
Of course this dynamic has been argued as speculative, but there is one other piece I observed that appears to be relevant or possibly supportive.
2 frames before the full jacket displacement at z224, at z222, I see the cuff of Connally’s white shirt of his right arm just a bit out from his suit jacket sleeve, visible just above the edge of the limo as his hand holds his hat.
In less than or equal to 55 ms, at z223, it appears to have been be driven down, totally out of view.
In the next frame at z224 the jacket flip becomes maximally visible. If his right wrist was struck violently in a downward manner by a bullet, might one expect the wrist to disappear from view in a manner like this very quickly? If a bullet hit the wrist and drove it out of view between 222 and 223, the shot may actually have been triggered around z219 with the bullet approaching the limo ~z221?
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just transversed). I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move. The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.
The right jacket area looked fully extended at z224, so if that is the result of the bullet’s imparted velocity on mass movement (chest debris or the jacket itself), the bullet transiting was a bit earlier.
The jacket may have been in its initial stages of motion as early as z223, but the displacement not quite great enough yet to readily pick out.
Of course this dynamic has been argued as speculative, but there is one other piece I observed that appears to be relevant or possibly supportive.
2 frames before the full jacket displacement at z224, at z222, I see the cuff of Connally’s white shirt of his right arm just a bit out from his suit jacket sleeve, visible just above the edge of the limo as his hand holds his hat.
In less than or equal to 55 ms, at z223, it appears to have been be driven down, totally out of view.
In the next frame at z224 the jacket flip becomes maximally visible. If his right wrist was struck violently in a downward manner by a bullet, might one expect the wrist to disappear from view in a manner like this very quickly? If a bullet hit the wrist and drove it out of view between 222 and 223, the shot may actually have been triggered around z219 with the bullet approaching the limo ~z221?
Dan, yes that’s it, good eye. I saw it on some MPI frames but it is on this gif as well.
The cuff disappears down the same time the orientation of his hat starts changing around, presumably following the wrist/hand motion.
To me it looks like the wrist was driven down after aperture closure of z222 and before it opened for frame z223.
I agree his wrist orientation a few frames later looks weird. I had heard he held the hat all the way to Parkland. Perhaps wrist strength/flexure and finger grasping strength/flexure are different enough to allow a finger grasp to exist after wrist damage.
Dan, yes that’s it, good eye. I saw it on some MPI frames but it is on this gif as well.
The cuff disappears down the same time the orientation of his hat starts changing around, presumably following the wrist/hand motion.
To me it looks like the wrist was driven down after aperture closure of z222 and before it opened for frame z223.
I agree his wrist orientation a few frames later looks weird. I had heard he held the hat all the way to Parkland. Perhaps wrist strength/flexure and finger grasping strength/flexure are different enough to allow a finger grasp to exist after wrist damage.
Harper took it to his uncle, Jack C. Harper, M.D., who in turn showed it to A.B. Cairns, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital. A total of three Dallas pathologists examined the bone and they identified the site of origin as the occiput. (On 22 November 1992, on a Palm Springs radio talk show, I helped to interview one of these pathologists, Dr. Gerhard Noteboom, who reaffirmed that conclusion; he also recalled the lead deposit on the fragment.) ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," p. 67).
Two other long-known facts should be mentioned:
* The Harper Fragment is occipital bone. Dr. Mantik was able to establish this a few years ago ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," pp. 9-10, 67-70, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf). This proves that the autopsy photos that show the back of the head intact have been altered. The FBI or Dr. Burkley "lost" the Harper Fragment, but, luckily, some photos were taken of it in Dallas. The only doctors who actually handled the Harper Fragment, including the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, said it was occipital bone. Dr. Mantik interviewed one of those doctors, Dr. Noteboom, who confirmed that it came from the occiput:
The WC and the HSCA FPP would not acknowledge that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone because (1) missing occipital bone indicates a shot from the front, and (2) a sizable defect in the occiput proves that all but one of the autopsy photos of the back of the head have been altered.
* Jackie Kennedy saw a piece of JFK's skull blown onto the trunk of the limousine, and that's why she started crawling on the trunk. Clint Hill, who got an up-close look at Kennedy's skull in the limo, said there was a large defect in the right-rear part of his skull. Agent Hill saw this wound again when he was asked to view the body to record the locations of the wounds. In her WC testimony, Jackie explained that she was trying to hold the back of JFK's head together, but that part of her testimony was omitted in the published version--it came to light years later.
Of course, literally dozens of witnesses who saw Kennedy's body in Dealey Plaza and/or at Parkland Hospital and/or at Bethesda Naval Hospital said there was a large wound in the back of the head, on the right side of the back of the head. Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who helped prepare the body for placement in the casket, described this wound, as did Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for burial after the autopsy. A number of these witnesses drew diagrams of the large rear head wound for the HSCA or the ARRB, and, thanks to the ARRB, we now have those diagrams:
http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html
Dr. Michael Chesser has confirmed Dr. Mantik's optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which, among other things, prove that the right-rear defect in the skull has been patched on the autopsy skull x-rays in an attempt to conceal its existence (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/). When the x-rays were altered, no one knew that in future years technology would enable experts to detect the patching.
Dr. Mantik has examined the autopsy materials nine times at the National Archives. Here is one summary of his findings in which he discusses his optical density measurements and the hard scientific evidence that the x-rays have been altered: https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120a.htm
"The Harper fragment photographs show it as a roughly trapezoidal piece, 7 centimeters by 5.5 centimeters in size, coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Near its short upper edge vascular foramina on the inside and a faint irregular line on the outside indicate saggital suture. Its posterior inferior pointed edge appears to fit the crack in the posterior section of the right parietal [bone] and its slightly wavy lower border can fit the upper edge of the loose lower section of right parietal [bone]. Its upper short border, on the left of the midline near vertex, may meet the left margin of the gap. Behind it there appears to be a large gap and in front a narrow one." -- Dr. J. Lawrence Angel
Apparently you didn't bother to read any of the links I provided. Dr. Mantik deals with Dr. Angel's bogus analysis of the Harper Fragment in his long article "The Medical Evidence Decoded." Why don't you read Dr. Mantik's section on the Harper Fragment and then deal with the evidence he cites for its being occipital bone?
And I notice you just brushed aside the fact that the consensus of the doctors who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment, including one who was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas (Dr. Cairns), said the fragment was occipital bone. These doctors got to handle the fragment and examine it up-close.
I also notice you ignored all the eyewitness accounts, some of which include diagrams, that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, which, of course, includes the occiput.
I further notice that you did not address the optical density measurements that prove that someone attempted to conceal the large right-rear wound in the autopsy skull x-rays by putting a graphical patch over it.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm
Most reconstructions (especially the parietal ones) with HF [Harper fragment] place the metallic smear near an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside.[9] That seems odd, because an entry site should normally lie on the outside. By citing "inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull,"[10] Cairns must have meant either (1) vascular grooves (i.e., grooves in occipital bone; in gross disagreement with Riley), or (2) the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus (which would, by definition, mean occipital bone). Riley did not address Cairns's provocative challenge to his conclusion. Likewise, Riley did not deal with Cairns' comment that HF suggested an entry wound. On the other hand, if HF had been parietal bone, then this smear would have lain near the skull vertex (Figure 3). Since an entry site near the vertex seems unlikely (to nearly everyone),[11] Riley would seem to regard the metallic smear as an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside, and even though there is no smear on the inside. The HSCA took the same curious approach (see below). . . .
The HSCA did address HF and did propose a skull reconstruction. In fact, since Michael Baden, M.D., and J. Lawrence Angel, Ph.D., disagreed with one another, the HSCA offered two contradictory reconstructions.[14] However, neither opinion supported an occipital origin for HF.[15] Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution, after viewing the photographs (the HSCA did not view the HF X-ray), described it as roughly trapezoidal, 7 x 5.5 cm, and coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Angel saw a suture line inside of HF, which he identified as part of the sagittal suture (Figure 3).[16] That he saw a suture line is interesting; in particular, he thereby corroborated Cairns's recollection of a "suture." In his reconstruction, however, Angel left a gap between HF and the triangular fragment[17] (the latter is red in Figure 3); according to Angel, one edge of the triangular fragment comprised part of the coronal suture; and he placed that fragment anterior to that suture. . . .
Another analysis was offered by Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., who is an expert in neuroanatomy. His brief paper[23] concluded that HF was right parietal, thereby agreeing with Angel (and with the HSCA). Riley emphasized two generic features of skull bones: (1) vascular grooves and (2) parietal foramina. The foramina are tiny holes (like dark dimples) in the bone that transmit blood vessels perpendicular to the skull surface. The grooves are shallow linear indentations that carry blood vessels parallel to the surface; Riley claimed that these two features are characteristic of parietal bone, but that "...occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving." Riley also asserted that foramina occurred "...only in parietal bone." (Based on a survey of many anatomy textbooks, and on my authentic human skull, these two arguments are both refuted below.) Riley noted an additional feature that, in his opinion, excluded an occipital site: the absence of deep grooves on HF for two specific, large blood vessels (the transverse sinus and the superior sagittal sinus). However, since the transverse sinus is from the lower occiput, that identification is quite irrelevant. That is because, in my reconstruction, HF is from the upper occiput (as I argue further below).
But the sulcus (or groove) for the superior sagittal sinus may actually be visible on HF (Figures 1 and 30B). Riley did not specifically address that possibility. Finally, Riley emphasized that parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness; all of which he saw in HF. However, he did not address the likelihood that the Dallas pathologists [Cairns, Noteboom, and Harper] were keenly aware of all of these issues. I would also emphasize that they had a major advantage over subsequent observers (including Riley). After all, they could see, in three dimensions, the authentic curvature of the bone itself and did not need to speculate from photographs.
But what images did Riley employ in his analysis? He stated that he had obtained copies of the HF photographs from Mary Ferrell,[24] which permitted him to reach one fundamental conclusion. According to Riley, his photographs (supposedly taken by Cairns) matched those used by the HSCA, thus ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity. More importantly though, via many anatomy citations, we shall refute Riley's two key opinions. (http://www.patspeer.com/rare-files)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htmFrom that article...
Billy Harper, who discovered the piece of bone when he was in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd taking pictures, took the fragment to his uncle, a Dr. Jack C. Harper, and Dr. Harper took the bone to Methodist Hospital where is was examined by Dr. A. B. Cairns, who was chief pathologist. Cairns opinion was that "the bone specimen looked like it came from the occipital region of the skull." Conspiracy interpretation of source of Harper fragmentBut suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.
Conspiracy books ever since have quoted Cairns, and used his assessment as evidence of a frontal shot exiting the rear of the head. Author Josiah Thompson, in Six Seconds in Dallas, after citing Cairns, notes that:
It is difficult to understand how a shot from the rear could drive a piece of the occipital bone 25 feet to the left of the vehicles's path. It is not so difficult to understand how a shot from the right front exploding through the rear of the skull could produce precisely that effect. (p. 101)
A graphic from Robert Groden's book The Killing of a President (right) shows a typical conspiracist interpretation of the fragment.
But suppose Cairns was wrong? The Warren Commission failed to deal with this issue. However by 1977, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations began its work, the existence of the bone and its possible importance were well-known. The Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel studied the two photos of the fragment made at Methodist Hospital (Warren Commission Document 1395).
From that article...But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.
The WC did not ignore Craig's or Kantor's statements. They essentially accused Craig of lying and said Kantor was mistaken. They took Jack Ruby's word over Kantor's!Neither one is mentioned in the final Report ...neither is Arnold.
From that article...But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.
Neither one is mentioned in the final Report ...neither is Arnold.
Ruby just told the WC that he was not at Parkland. He merely responds 'no' to nearly 90 questions--
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-17.html
Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.
The WC allowed Roger Craig to testify (6 H 260-273), but it rejected his account. Decker falsely claimed that Craig was never in the office with Oswald and never spoke with Oswald.
Quote from: Jerry Freeman on July 18, 2020, 09:53:51 PM
Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.
Yeap, WC apologists have been doing that for a long time.
Why suppose that Cairns was correct
when we know for a fact that he was not?
Not only do we have the autopsy report that tells us that he was incorrect,
we have the autopsy photos, autopsy X-Rays,
and the Zapruder film that we can view for ourselves.
We also have the fact the the fragment was found well ahead of where the limo was at the time of the head shot. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/harpermap.gif)
Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.
I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited."
You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.
LOL!!! Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays? Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. (And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone.)
By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.
Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.
You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?
Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?
The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.
Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.
Dear Mike T. Griffith,
Why do you call McAdams a "pseudo research site"?
When it comes to the JFK assassination, how do you define "research," anyway?
How about compiling facts that other people have already researched and proved, and sharing them in a comprehensive way?
How about rebutting tinfoil conspiracy theories? Isn't that worthwile?
Do you consider yourself a "JFK assassination researcher"?
How so?
-- MWT ;)
So you're just going to ignore all the evidence that I presented and resort to ad hominem attacks? I am guessing that you made no effort to answer a single point that I made because you don't know how to answer any of them.
I am also guessing that you, like Nickerson, simply refuse to read any of the scholarly scientific studies on the Harper fragment and on the autopsy photos and x-rays that show that the Harper fragment was occipital bone and that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered--and that the autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves (e.g., the intact frontal area on the autopsy photos that show the face vs. the autopsy x-rays that show frontal bone missing--not just damaged, but missing.
Oh, you poor rhetorical thing, you.
-- MWT ;)
Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.
I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Are you ever going to deal with the fact that Dr. Riley based his interpretation of the Harper fragment on the mistaken belief that occipital bone does not contain vascular grooves or foramina?
You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.
LOL!!! Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays? Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. Dr. John Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist hired by the ARRB, told the ARRB that the skull x-rays show significant frontal bone missing. And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing.
By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.
You see, if the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing, then the autopsy photos that show JFK's face cannot be authentic.
Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.
You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?
Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?
The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.
Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.
Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head. [/size]
Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays?
I was thinking lately of CTers skillful use of terminology to mislead and the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” is an excellent example of such.
When you hear the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap”, everyone thinks about the backwards motion of the head. Never the forward motion.
This is curious. The fastest motion was forward. Between z312 and z313, the head moved forward with an average speed of 2.2 mph. The fastest backwards motion was a speed of only 1.7 mph between z317 and z318.
Also, the head reached its maximum forward speed during 55 milliseconds. It took 220 milliseconds or more for the head to reach its maximum backwards speed.
Even through the forward motion was faster and much “snapper” than the backward motion, in the mind of most Americans the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” only means the backward motion. A prime example of the power of the repetitive lie which some people are not ashamed to use over and over again.
Who were the other two pathologists.
Mantik hasn't established that it was occipital bone.
Most reconstructions (especially the parietal ones) with HF [Harper fragment] place the metallic smear near an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside.[9] That seems odd, because an entry site should normally lie on the outside. By citing "inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull,"[10] Cairns must have meant either (1) vascular grooves (i.e., grooves in occipital bone; in gross disagreement with Riley), or (2) the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus (which would, by definition, mean occipital bone). Riley did not address Cairns's provocative challenge to his conclusion. Likewise, Riley did not deal with Cairns' comment that HF suggested an entry wound. On the other hand, if HF had been parietal bone, then this smear would have lain near the skull vertex (Figure 3). Since an entry site near the vertex seems unlikely (to nearly everyone),[11] Riley would seem to regard the metallic smear as an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside, and even though there is no smear on the inside. The HSCA took the same curious approach (see below). . . .
The HSCA did address HF and did propose a skull reconstruction. In fact, since Michael Baden, M.D., and J. Lawrence Angel, Ph.D., disagreed with one another, the HSCA offered two contradictory reconstructions.[14] However, neither opinion supported an occipital origin for HF.[15] Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution, after viewing the photographs (the HSCA did not view the HF X-ray), described it as roughly trapezoidal, 7 x 5.5 cm, and coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Angel saw a suture line inside of HF, which he identified as part of the sagittal suture (Figure 3).[16] That he saw a suture line is interesting; in particular, he thereby corroborated Cairns's recollection of a "suture." In his reconstruction, however, Angel left a gap between HF and the triangular fragment[17] (the latter is red in Figure 3); according to Angel, one edge of the triangular fragment comprised part of the coronal suture; and he placed that fragment anterior to that suture. . . .
Another analysis was offered by Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., who is an expert in neuroanatomy. His brief paper[23] concluded that HF was right parietal, thereby agreeing with Angel (and with the HSCA). Riley emphasized two generic features of skull bones: (1) vascular grooves and (2) parietal foramina. The foramina are tiny holes (like dark dimples) in the bone that transmit blood vessels perpendicular to the skull surface. The grooves are shallow linear indentations that carry blood vessels parallel to the surface; Riley claimed that these two features are characteristic of parietal bone, but that "...occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving." Riley also asserted that foramina occurred "...only in parietal bone." (Based on a survey of many anatomy textbooks, and on my authentic human skull, these two arguments are both refuted below.) Riley noted an additional feature that, in his opinion, excluded an occipital site: the absence of deep grooves on HF for two specific, large blood vessels (the transverse sinus and the superior sagittal sinus). However, since the transverse sinus is from the lower occiput, that identification is quite irrelevant. That is because, in my reconstruction, HF is from the upper occiput (as I argue further below).
But the sulcus (or groove) for the superior sagittal sinus may actually be visible on HF (Figures 1 and 30B). Riley did not specifically address that possibility. Finally, Riley emphasized that parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness; all of which he saw in HF. However, he did not address the likelihood that the Dallas pathologists [Cairns, Noteboom, and Harper] were keenly aware of all of these issues. I would also emphasize that they had a major advantage over subsequent observers (including Riley). After all, they could see, in three dimensions, the authentic curvature of the bone itself and did not need to speculate from photographs.
But what images did Riley employ in his analysis? He stated that he had obtained copies of the HF photographs from Mary Ferrell,[24] which permitted him to reach one fundamental conclusion. According to Riley, his photographs (supposedly taken by Cairns) matched those used by the HSCA, thus ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity. More importantly though, via many anatomy citations, we shall refute Riley's two key opinions. (http://www.patspeer.com/rare-files)
No credible radiologists and pathologists take him seriously.
I've read the autopsy report and the numerous statements and testimonies of the Bethesda pathologists. I've seen the available autopsy photos and X-Rays. I've viewed the Zapruder film too may times to count. I know without any doubt whatsoever that it was not occipital bone.
The "6.5 mm" fragment isn't mentioned in the autopsy report but Humes talked about it in his WC testimony. He referred to it as "a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye".
As far as frontal bone being missing, you're going to have to be more specific. What part of the frontal bone was missing and how much?
The only frontal damage to the head was above the right eye, where the bullet exited.
Witnesses who reported seeing a large wound in the back of the head were mistaken.
The autopsy photos, X-Rays, and the Zapruder film do not lie.
What we see in the Zapruder film is also seen in the autopsy photos. I don't know what you mean by round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible.
I'm sorry, who is it that you don't believe? Millicent Cranor or William Harper? Or perhaps both?
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf
"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54 54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13, 1997.
Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.
Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:
You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.
Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! So you just don't care that the only three pathologists who were able to actually examine the fragment up close and with their own hands, the only three pathologists who did not need to guess about the fragment's contour and curvature--all three of those pathologists, one of whom was a chief pathologist, said it was occipital bone. Nah, never mind all that, because, well, you've read the autopsy report and have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays and the Zapruder film!
LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye." It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.
I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
HUH???!!! Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram).
Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?
It makes perfect sense that the trained, experienced mortician who prepared JFK's skull and the rest of his body for burial couldn't tell the difference between a large wound that included much of the occiput vs. a large wound several inches away above the right ear that left the occiput undamaged. It's just an amazing coincidence that Clint Hill, who saw this wound in the limo and again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head, the same part of the head that Jackie told the WC she was trying to hold together in the limo--and Hill went to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the locations of the wounds. And, needless to say, it's also an amazing coincidence that the Parkland nurse, Diana Bowron, who prepared Kennedy's body and who packed the large head wound with cotton gauze, said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head. She, too, just couldn't tell the difference between that wound and a wound several inches forward above the right ear. Just amazing.
So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?
Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.
LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.
I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.
Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.
Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:
You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.
Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! !
LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye." It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.
And why oh why oh why would Humes have omitted from the autopsy report any mention one of the two largest fragments on the x-rays, a fragment that just happened to be 6.5 mm in size (gosh, what a coincidence!), if he had seen this fragment on the x-rays that he took and examined on the night of the autopsy? Why?
Are you ever going to address the scientific finding that the 6.5 mm fragment image was added to the x-rays, that it is clearly an artifact, as even the HSCA's Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged?[/size]
I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
size=10pt]HUH???!!! Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram). [/size]
Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?
So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?
Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.
LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.
I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.[/size]
I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
You claim that Drs Notebloom and Harper were both pathologists but I've yet to find any bios or curriculum vitae's of theirs that shows what their specialties were. Also, where can we read their statements on the fragment?
Has not.
Oh come on. Mantik isn't even a radiologist. You slur Dr Lattimer as being a quack when that label is probably morely aptly applied to Mantik.
You want to talk resumes? Have you seen the resumes of Roland Zavada, Dr. Randy Robertson, Harry C. Andrews, Richard J. Blackwell, Thomas N. Canning, Robert Chiralo, David B. Einsendrath, Ronald Francis, William K. Hartmann, Bob R. Hunt, Donald H. Janney, Ellis Kerley, Cecil W. Kirk, Charles J. Leontis, C.S. McCamy, Gerald M. McDonnel, Everett Merritt, Paul G. Roetling, Frank Scott, Robert H. Selzer, Bennet Sherman, Philip N. Slater, Clyde C. Snow, George W. Stroke, and Dr J. Lawrence Angel?
The 6.5 mm is "just above the right eye." And as I pointed out, Humes et al did not omit it from the autopsy report. It's the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment.
"Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.”
Let's look at the following article by Mantik:
https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JFK-Autopsy-X-Rays-Mantik.pdf
It is copyrighted so I'll refrain from using his graphics. I'll just duplicate them myself. Looking at his first two images:
He maintains that the higher fragment, the one high in the forehead, is the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed.
But zooming in on the lateral view we can see that that higher fragment looks to be imbedded in the frontal skull bone. That effectively rules it out as being the larger one that Humes removed. From Humes' WC testimony: [snipping stuff that you clearly do not understand]
Sturdivan believes that the fragment was an artifact but he does not believe that it was added to the x-rays. He's wrong about it being an artifact.
It's by the late John Hunt. His stuff is hard to read because he was such an arrogant sort with very limited critical thinking ability. I'll give it a read though. Well, the exit was considerably above the right eye. But above the right eye nevertheless. The HSCA FPP placed the exit where the parietal bone meets the frontal.
There was no significant amount of frontal bone missing.
Many of them admitted that they had been mistaken.
What about those who reported that there was no large wound in the back of the head? Including those who actually performed the forensic examination of the body. Were they all mistaken?
I'm going with the hard scientific evidence. You're the one who is ignoring it. You are putting your faith in the opinion of a "wannabe radiologist" who is making absolute conclusions on things seen in x-rays that were never intended to be used for such. The X-Ray machine was even outdated at the time and it was only being used to try and locate any bullet(s) that might not have exited. The X-Rays are poor quality. They were not even near the best that the machine could produce. Custer and Reed must have been under considerable stress. So, one can forgive them for producing substandard images by even the standard of the piece of crap machine itself. Optical density measurements cannot be anywhere accurately made with those X-Rays.
Neither Boswell nor Finck mentioned in their WC testimonies that frontal bone was missing and they both signed the autopsy report.
The very back of Kennedy's head cannot be made out with any clarity for more than just a few frames. But the lack of clarity is not unique to just his head. The backs of the heads of the others in the limo are "blacked out" as well.
While the location that Harper told her was improbable, his placing it that far forward it does indicate that the fragment was found considerably forward of where the limo was at the time of the head shot.
The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?
Then why do you keep avoiding Dr. Mantik's observations and points that establish that the fragment is occipital bone? Three times now I have asked you to address his points and observations, which deal with Angel's and Riley's arguments, but you just keep snipping the long quote and ignoring them.
FYI, Dr. Robertson argues that JFK was shot from two directions, and that there were two gunmen. I'm guessing you were not aware of this.
Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science)
-- Dr. John Nichols (professor of pathology, University of Kansas)
-- Dr. Milton Helpern (forensic pathologist and a former chief medical examiner for NYC)
-- Dr. Art Snyder (a physicist at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. Michael Chesser (specialist in neurology and neurophysiology)
-- Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist and physicist, with post doctoral work in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar (professor of clinical surgery at Stanford University and the University of California)
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw (professor of clinical surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroscientist)
-- Doug Horne (Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB)
-- Daryll Weatherly (mathematician, State University of New York)
-- Dr. Roderick Ryan (film and photography scientist, formerly with Kodak)
-- Dr. G. Paul Chambers (physicist, formerly a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in DC)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD and conducted wound ballistics experiments that disproved the jet-effect theory for JFK's head snap)
-- Dr. Donald Thomas (entomologist, a senior scientist with the United States federal government, and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Texas)
-- Hershel Womack (professor emeritus of photography, Texas Tech University)
-- Dr. John Newman (former military intelligence officer, served as executive assistant to the director of NSA, and now teaches political science, international terrorism, and counterterrorism at James Madison University--his JFK work has been in the area of Oswald's intelligence connections)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
-- Dr. Cliff Spiegelman (distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, author of over 100 scientific publications, and the author of the award-winning paper recognized by the American Statistical Association: “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”)[/size]
HUH??? You have no clue what you're talking about. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the head. The 6.5 mm "fragment" is in the back of the head, near the cowlick. You understand that these fragments also appear on the lateral skull x-ray, right? Right? So there is no way Humes et al "mistook" a fragment at the front of the head for a fragment at the back of it. Here are two articles that will bring you up to speed on the basics about this issue:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm
You are lost in space on this issue. The 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm are two separate fragments at opposite ends of the skull on the skull x-rays. Here is one of Dr. Mantik's articles on the 6.5 mm fragment and on his finding via optical density measurements that it is a fake image--he also found that it is not even a continuous image:
https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf
Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about here. Let's back up and deal with the issue at hand: Humes said nothing about the 6.5 mm "fragment" in the autopsy report, even though it would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the x-rays. Nor did any of the autopsy doctors mention the fragment in their notes. Humes had at least one lateral-view skull x-ray, so he would have had no problem seeing the fragment and distinguishing it from the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes did not mention the 6.5 mm fragment in his WC testimony--he was clearly, undeniably referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.
Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none.
That information is in the articles I've linked for you, which obviously you still have not read. This is getting silly. Why are you so afraid to read the other side?
Then why do you keep avoiding Dr. Mantik's observations and points that establish that the fragment is occipital bone? Three times now I have asked you to address his points and observations, which deal with Angel's and Riley's arguments, but you just keep snipping the long quote and ignoring them.
So Dr. Mantik "isn't even a radiologist"? No, he's a radiation oncologist who also happens to be a physicist. A radiation oncologist receives extensive training in radiology because he has to expertly read x-rays. Let me know when anyone catches Dr. Mantik outright faking test data and misrepresenting others' test data, as Lattimer was caught doing. Go look at Lattimer's SBT model, for starters.
LOL! Have you only been studying the JFK case for a few years? Nearly all the names on your list were experts who only had brief contact with the JFK case because they were asked by a government body to provide input on certain items of evidence, and who have never written anything about the case on their own.
FYI, Dr. Robertson argues that JFK was shot from two directions, and that there were two gunmen. I'm guessing you were not aware of this.
Furthermore, some of the experts on your list gave evidence that was ignored or dismissed because it destroyed the lone-gunman theory. Dr. Canning did not accept the HSCA FPP's placement of the back wound, so he ignored it, and he also reported that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by bullet fragments from the head shot--and for these sins, Canning was treated very badly by members of the FPP.
Similarly, Dr. Angel provided very unwelcomed analysis of the autopsy skull x-rays--he put the Harper fragment in the rear part of the parietal bone, rejected the FPP's claim that the three skull fragments joined and revealed an exit hole, and noted that the x-rays showed that considerable frontal bone was missing. The HSCA FPP, like the WC, dared not admit that frontal bone was missing because no such damage is seen in the autopsy photos that show the face, so they simply ignored Angel's finding.
The FPP was not happy with Dr. McDonnel either, and the feeling became mutual. Dr. McDonnel provided the stunning but every unwanted discovery of another bullet fragment on the back of the head, on the outer table of the skull near the 6.5 mm "fragment"--a fragment that everyone knew could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. McDonnel also confirmed that the skull x-rays showed frontal bone missing. Released internal HSCSA memos and interviews reveal that the HSCA FPP tried to get McDonnel to "change his mind," and in return he became suspicious of the FPP's motives and suspected they would misquote him, if they quoted him at all. The FPP ended up simply ignoring McDonnel's discovery of the extra rear-head fragment and dismissed his observation that the skull x-rays showed missing frontal bone.
Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science)
-- Dr. John Nichols (professor of pathology, University of Kansas)
-- Dr. Milton Helpern (forensic pathologist and a former chief medical examiner for NYC)
-- Dr. Art Snyder (a physicist at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. Michael Chesser (specialist in neurology and neurophysiology)
-- Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist and physicist, with post doctoral work in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar (professor of clinical surgery at Stanford University and the University of California)
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw (professor of clinical surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroscientist)
-- Doug Horne (Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB)
-- Daryll Weatherly (mathematician, State University of New York)
-- Dr. Roderick Ryan (film and photography scientist, formerly with Kodak)
-- Dr. G. Paul Chambers (physicist, formerly a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in DC)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD and conducted wound ballistics experiments that disproved the jet-effect theory for JFK's head snap)
-- Dr. Donald Thomas (entomologist, a senior scientist with the United States federal government, and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Texas)
-- Hershel Womack (professor emeritus of photography, Texas Tech University)
-- Dr. John Newman (former military intelligence officer, served as executive assistant to the director of NSA, and now teaches political science, international terrorism, and counterterrorism at James Madison University--his JFK work has been in the area of Oswald's intelligence connections)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
-- Dr. Cliff Spiegelman (distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, author of over 100 scientific publications, and the author of the award-winning paper recognized by the American Statistical Association: “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”)
HUH??? You have no clue what you're talking about. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the head. The 6.5 mm "fragment" is in the back of the head, near the cowlick. You understand that these fragments also appear on the lateral skull x-ray, right? Right? So there is no way Humes et al "mistook" a fragment at the front of the head for a fragment at the back of it. Here are two articles that will bring you up to speed on the basics about this issue:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm
You are lost in space on this issue. The 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm are two separate fragments at opposite ends of the skull on the skull x-rays. Here is one of Dr. Mantik's articles on the 6.5 mm fragment and on his finding via optical density measurements that it is a fake image--he also found that it is not even a continuous image:
https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf
Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about here. Let's back up and deal with the issue at hand: Humes said nothing about the 6.5 mm "fragment" in the autopsy report, even though it would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the x-rays. Nor did any of the autopsy doctors mention the fragment in their notes. Humes had at least one lateral-view skull x-ray, so he would have had no problem seeing the fragment and distinguishing it from the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes did not mention the 6.5 mm fragment in his WC testimony--he was clearly, undeniably referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.
You know we have testimony from one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy that he was ordered to take skull x-rays with a bullet fragment taped onto a skull, right? Did he just dream this? How would he have been "mistaken" about this? And his testimony is all the more compelling because he was a very reluctant witness. This information came out thanks to the ARRB.
No, sorry, but several scientists, including Dr. Mantik, have verified through optical density measurements that the 6.5 mm fragment is not a real fragment but is an image that was placed onto the x-ray.
Sturdivan's point is that he doesn't know how the "fragment" got on the x-ray but that there is no way it could be a fragment from the kind of ammunition that Oswald used, and that therefore it must be an artifact. Ballistics expert Howard Donahue made the same point--that there is no way on this planet that that fragment "sheared off" from an FMJ missile and therefore it could not have come from Oswald's alleged ammo.
Phew, that's a rather forced, specious definition of "above the right eye."
Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none. But now you're trying to weasel-word your way out of the problem by saying "no significant amount," but earlier you said none was missing. Two of your own experts (Angel and McDonnel), independently of each other, observed that frontal bone was missing, and not just a little bit. Dr. McDonnel got so fed up with the FPP over this issue that he came to question their motives. He didn't understand that the FPP could not afford to admit missing frontal bone because it would discredit some of the autopsy photos.
No, "many" did not recant. How about all the witnesses who provided wound diagrams to the HSCA and the ARRB? They certainly did not "admit they had been mistaken."
Dr. Aguilar has written a good article on the witnesses who saw the large right-rear head wound:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
LOL! Only a handful of witnesses said there was no large wound in the back of the head, and three of them were the discredited autopsy doctors!
What a jumble of nonsense. Accurate optical density measurements most certainly can be made with the autopsy x-rays, especially given the fact that we can compare the measurements with those made on x-rays of JFK's head taken a few years before he was shot. You'd know this if you could just muster up the courage to read the optical density research. And Dr. Mantik, who is in fact highly qualified in radiology, is not the only one who has done these measurements. Dr. Michael Chesser, a specialist in neurology and neurophysiology, has also done optical density measurements on the skull x-rays and has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings.
You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"
The problem is that you just won't allow yourself to consider the obvious conclusion that the autopsy report is a bunch of hokum that was produced to try to support the lone-gunman theory. That's why Humes burned his autopsy notes and burned the first draft of the autopsy report, an unprecedented action for a pathologist to take in a criminal gunshot case.
Yeah, you bet. Clint Hill was on the trunk of the limousine and saw the fresh head wound from just 2-3 feet away, and he saw the same wound when he was sent to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds. Nurse Bowron packed the large head wound with gauze while preparing the body for transport--she saw the same large right-rear head wound that Hill saw. Fast forward a few hours to Bethesda: Tom Robinson, the mortician, had to prepare the skull and the rest of the body for burial, and he saw a large wound in the back of the head (he also saw a small entry-like wound in the right temple--he filled it with wax).
I notice you ignored his FBI statement, which simply said "south" of the limo.
Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment. They were surveying to identify the location of the limo for each of the shots. If you look at where those surveys placed the limousine at the time of the head shot, the limousine was well forward of either of the locations that Harper identified. Chuck Marler wrote a very detailed, helpful chapter on the surveys in Assassination Science (pp. 249-262). The book is available for free PDF download:
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf
You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"
Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment.
For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.
I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.[/size]
Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.
But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?
Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
During the lifetime of the HSCA, Larry Sturdivan served as its ballistics consultant. In his subsequent book he emphasized that he had never, in his entire career, seen a cross-section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull. So, totally contrary to all prior government investigations, he concluded that the 6.5 mm object could not be a metal fragment:
“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)
This was a radical statement. After all, the HSCA in particular, had relied on the (metallic) authenticity of this fragment in the most fundamental manner: based on the supposed reality of this 6.5 mm object, the HSCA had concluded that the bullet (from the sole headshot) had deposited this 6.5 mm “metal fragment” near its entry site at the back of the skull. (“The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest ‘Metallic Fragment,’” p. 5, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)
Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.
But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?
Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.
By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."
This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.
The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out.
Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?
We don't know the Harper fragment went forward. We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo. How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?
The 6.5 mm object was not described in the autopsy report nor was it seen by anyone on the original autopsy X-rays. Among the many dozens of individuals at the autopsy, no one saw it, even though the X-rays were on public display during the autopsy. Nor has anyone at the autopsy ever recalled a single conversation about it. This peculiar object simply materialized in the public record, for the first time four years later with the 1968 Clark Panel report.
This artifact was added to the JFK AP skull X-ray (in the darkroom) via a double exposure of a 6.5 mm aperture (e.g., via a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of cardboard). In this process, the first step was to imprint the image from the original X-ray onto a duplicate film (via a light box in the dark room). The second step was another exposure that imprinted the 6.5 mm image onto the duplicate film (i.e., superimposing it over the image of the original X-ray). This duplicate film was then developed to yield the image seen in Figure 1. This process inevitably produces a phantom effect, whereby objects (e.g., bullet fragments in this case) on the original film are seen separately from the superimposed 6.5 mm image. On JFK’s AP skull X-ray, the original metal fragment (that lay at the back of the skull) can be seen separately through the 6.5 mm image (Figure 7). ("The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest 'Metallic Fragment,'" p. 14, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)
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.
Now I want to go back to the right lateral view, and to focus on the white patch, which Dr. Mantik has written so much about. I agree completely with him, that this points toward tampering.
Notice on the left this same area on the 1960 [JFK] skull x-ray, and how it is much less white, or dense, compared to the base of the skull, the petrous portion of the temporal bone.
Dr. Mantik took many more optical density readings that I did, but I wanted to show that my readings agree with his – that the white patch appears much more dense than is possible. On the left lateral x-ray, the OD reading was much more dense than the petrous bone – and again, this is not possible. An optical density of .24 is equivalent to a much higher density of the skull in this region, compared with an optical density of .32, and this is not physiologic, even in the face of traumatic alteration of the skull.
Most physicians, myself included, are not aware of the usefulness of optical densitometry for analyzing x-ray film, and I think it was Dr. Mantik’s background as a physicist which caused him to recognize the potential for applying this technology to these films.
Dr. Mantik has written extensively about the technique of double exposure and how this could have been accomplished with these films. I mention other possibilities because we know that the skull was reconstructed, and that the morticians used a rubber patch combined with plaster of Paris to fill in skull defects after the autopsy. I can’t exclude this, however I think that Dr. Mantik is probably right that double exposure is how the alteration was accomplished.
Next, I’d like to talk about the 6.5 mm bright object. The official version is that this is a slice of the midpoint of a Mannlicher Carcano bullet, that broke off and is embedded between the skull and the galea at the HSCA entry wound location.
If you take into account the angle taken for the AP x-ray, then it has to lie somewhere along the red line on the left. The only metallic appearing object along this path is the fragment noted at the back of the skull. I agree with Dr. Mantik that this fragment lies within the circumference of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object was added to the image.
Dr. G.M. McDonnel, who made the computer enhanced images, described this fragment as being located between the outer table of the skull and the galea, the thickest layer of the scalp. He postulated that this broke off when the bullet hit the skull, and this fragment was thrown sideways and away from the skull, embedding itself in this location.
This is how the object appeared to me on the original film. There are two metallic fragments visible within the circumference of this object, and I agree with Dr. Mantik that the largest of these appears to correspond with the object embedded in the galea. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s description of the two fragments visible within the circumference of this object. I saw this only on the original AP x-ray – the HSCA copy shows a uniformly bright object.
I agree with Dr. Mantik that this is artifactual, and it was most likely added by double exposure. He has described this in detail in his publications. ("A Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographs," http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)
I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender. He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.
He has a whole website on that at:
http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/ (http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/)
. . .
Another attempt to poison the well with a completely off-topic smear.
Elliott does that a lot.
We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.
We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.
How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?
How about the 'frisbee effect'?
Elliott will work it out.
He's so into physics!
Quote from: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender.
Quote from: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.
He has a whole website on that at: http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/
Until recently, Mr. Griffith was the ‘go to’ expert at this forum when a CTer wished to argue against the Ballistic Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis. His other believes are pertinent. If John McAdams were to argue that the South didn’t secede in order to maintain Slavery, but was really over High Tariffs (which in 1860 were actually at their lowest level since 1816), you don’t think CTers would fine this pertinent?
We know the Harper fragment went forward. We can see it flying forward in frames 313 and 314.
First of all, must a fragment be sent flying directly in line with the bullet? Looking at frame 313:
And no ballistic expert has found it impossible for a fragment from the head to be sent flying up and forward and to the left of the limousine.
What on earth does this have to do with the JFK assassination? I would never use the argument "Well, he's an Obama defender and/or a Biden defender" to try to make a point in a JFK discussion, because such a comment would be irrelevant. People who make such comments are only showing their own blind, rabid partisan bias.
If you bother to read the comments I have made about Trump in this forum, you will see that my position on him is mixed. I defend most of his policies, but I do not like the way he often conducts himself and I do not think much of him as a person. He was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates in the 2016 GOP primary.
My views on that subject have undergone a substantial shift over the last four years. I still believe that under the original understanding of the Constitution, the South had the right to secede, but I no longer believe that the South had sufficient justification for exercising that right. This is why you will notice that my Civil War site has many articles that defend Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan. In fact, I have devoted an entire website to a defense of McClellan (there are links to it on my Civil War site). People who have been following my Civil War site for some time have noticed that I took down my harshly critical anti-Lincoln article, because my views on Lincoln have undergone a dramatic shift.
That's a circular argument. You're assuming that what you see is the Harper fragment with one of your patented "most likely" arguments.
Supposedly it was a glancing shot displacing skull to the right of the midline. So what force carries it to the left?
No. It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of an argument about the JFK assassination.
But where exactly does Griffith argue that the south didn’t secede in order to maintain slavery? Because you're the guy who falsely accused Mantik of being a holocaust denier.
In Dr. David Mantik’s book:
Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK
; The “Experts” this book refers to are world renown experts like Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik who have discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes.
; Yes, Yes, I know. I can’t give Dr. Mantik all the credit for these great discoveries. Some of them were Fetzer’s.
Chapter: How the Film of the Century was Edited
Note: Well of course the “The Wizard of Oz” was a hoax. Did he think that was all real?
What force carried to the left? What force carried it upwards, as we see in frame 313? Debris is sent in many directions downrange, to the left, to the right, upward, downward, from what anyone can clearly see in frame 313.
“Ballistic expert” as in a professional ballistic expert. Who conducts scientific experiments with firearms and various targets. Who conducts these experiments in a systematic manner. Who can give testimony in courts on this technical subject of firearms. These are the ones that I refer to as ballistic experts.
And as far as I know, none of them agree with the CTers on the “impossibility” of the Single Bullet Theory.
Griffith has a whole website dedicated to arguing that the South was justified in seceding from the Union.
I, on the other hand made a one line joke about Mantik and Fetzer. I guess a one-line joke is the same as writing up a whole website.
Note how reluctant you are to provide a link to my original post. So that others can easily check out your claim. I shall rectify that for you:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2622.0.html
Now, my relevant quote:
Is this really a serious charge that BOTH Mantik and Fetzer denied the Holocaust? And BOTH believed that the “Wizard of Oz” portrayed real events? This is equivalent to writing up a whole website on it?
Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik who have discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes."
Both have denied the holocaust?
I didn’t talk about Trump. I talked about your views on the Civil War.
CTers are free to bring up subjects that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
Like Gerald Posner plagiarism on articles he wrote that had nothing to do with the assassination. These charges were true. Easy enough for a professional reporter to do. Reporters get their information from what other reporters write. There is simply not enough time for each reporter to conduct their own interviews and write the number of articles demanded of them. And what person who makes the news would be willing or able to give an interview to all the thousands of reporters who want to write about them. But a report is supposed to reword everything, so that everything is in his own worlds. In this ‘Cut and Paste’ world, I would guess Posner ran out of time and published the words of others. This is a technical violation of reporter ethics and he was fired. In any case, CTers make a big deal of this, which has nothing to do with the JFK assassination, and that’s all right.
Or John McAdams being fired for reasons that had nothing to do with his statements on the JFK assassination. But, again, it was alright for CTers to talk about this a lot. Unlike Posner, there was no justified reason for him being fired. The courts ruled that he was fired for political reasons, not because he had done anything unethical.
But, if a LNer talks about the beliefs or actions of CTers, that somehow is off topic.
George McClellan believed that slavery should be allowed to continue. So did Lincoln’s. But by January 1863, Lincoln believed it should not, where McClelland believed slavery should continue, as late as November 1964 and probably until the end of the war. So, I’m not impressed by a defense of McClellan.
But you still believe, as far as I can tell, that the South went to war over the high tariff, and not to protect slavery. This is quite false. These are not the reasons the South was giving in 1861, where they made it clear it was to protect slavery. I don’t know why anyone would ever believe they seceded because of the tariff.
In a nutshell, I believe secession is wrong for two reasons:
1. It would tend to cause Democracies to split up. Making them more vulnerable to non-Democracies. As Lincoln made clear in his Gettysburg address, the ultimate Union cause was to ensure that the government of the people will not perish from the Earth.
2. If Secession is a right, then it can be used by the Minority to get what it wants. It turns Democracy on its ear. In the 1850’s Democracy was turned topsy-turvy.
The South got what it wanted against the wishes of the majority on:
a. No railway to the west coast, uniting the country – too advantageous to the North.
b. No Homestead Act – too advantageous to the North
c. A Low Tariff – wanted by the South
d. Prevent the establishment of the “Land Grant Colleges” – not wanted by the South.
The South, the minority, was getting all sorts of things they wanted, all through the threat of Secession. Many of which had seemingly nothing to do with slavery.
Once the South seceded, and secession was no longer a threat, in 1862, the majority finally got what it wanted. The building of the Transcontinental railroad. The college land grands, which started colleges, like the University of California, among others. These colleges were the key to allowing America to becoming a real-world leader in Science in the twentieth century. It has been argued that the high tariffs were the key to getting industry established in America, because, initially, they could not compete with Europe. But once allowed to get established, they could more than compete against Europe, even on a level playing field.
In any case, right or wrong, the majority should get what it wants, not the minority. The threat of secession turns this on its head.
By the way, in 1861, Congress did raise the tariffs. But this happened after the 7 states seceded. And the other 4 seceded not because of the high tariff but because of the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s call on them to supply troops, and the likely necessary for Union armies to pass through them, as they did through Pennsylvania, and indeed all northern states. High tariffs did not cause secession. Secession caused the high tariffs.
Some of your arguments are valid. Some of them are erroneous. And some of them are overly simplistic. As just one example, McClellan was very anti-slavery, but he was also a constitutionalist. He was perfectly okay with ending slavery as long as it was ended constitutionally. As long as slavery was legal, he did not feel authorized to use extra-legal means to free slaves, but he personally detested slavery.
The head snap refers to the backward motion of President Kennedy’s head seen in the Zapruder film. As Posner puts it, “But if the President was struck in the head by a bullet fired from the rear, then why does he jerk so violently backward on the Zapruder film which recorded the assassination? To most people, the rapid backward movement at the moment of the shot means the President was struck from the front.” Posner begins by trying to dismiss the significance of the head snap with a quote from respected forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden: “People have no conception of how real life works with bullet wounds. It’s not like Hollywood, where someone gets shot and falls over backwards.” Dr. Baden is right about people, but heads are more than an order of magnitude lighter than a person. The velocity imparted to a head by a stopping bullet is given by conservation of momentum:
V head = V bullet (M bullet/M head)
where V is velocity and M is mass. For a 10 gm bullet moving at 550 meter/sec hitting a 5 kg head, this is -1 meter sec, or to put it another way ~2.4 inches per Zapruder frame.
Having used Dr. Baden to dismiss the possibility that a bullet strike could cause head motion, Posner twists around and in the next paragraph notes that Itek Corporation, using a “computer enhancement” (Itek, 1975), discovered that JFK “first jerked forward 2.3 inches before starting his rapid movement backward.” Itek did not “discover” this forward motion. Cal-Tech physicist Richard Feynman noticed it in 1966 when David Lifton showed him the Zapruder frames published in Life (Lifton, 1980, 48). Warren critic Josiah Thompson published measurements made on black and white copies in the 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas (Thompson, 1967, 90).
The measurements of Itek and Thompson are almost inconsistent with a shot from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The motion is so large that nearly all the momentum of the bullet is needed to account for it. However, quantitatively Thompson and Itek were mistaken. The apparent motion between Zapruder frames Z312 and Z313 is an artifact of the blurring of frame Z313. This is not to say that JFK’s head did not move forward between frames Z312 and Z313, but that the Z313 blur obscures the motion so that it cannot be measured using these frames. The actual forward motion (~0.3 meter/sec) can be estimated by comparing Z312 to Z314. It is about 1/3 the value obtained using the Itek or Thompson measurements—consistent with a Carcano bullet imparting ~1/3 its momentum and ~1/2 its energy.
What is the purpose of Posner’s dance around the forward motion? He trots out Dr. Baden to deny that the direction of motion tells us anything, then uses the observed forward motion to verify a shot from the rear. None of this explains why the head went backward ~100 msec later.
An explanation for the backward proposed by Nobel Laurette Luis Alvarez, in his 1976 article in the American Journal of Physics. Posner’s description of Alvarez’s work is ludicrous:
“Dubbed the ‘jet effect,’ Alvarez established it both through physical experiments that recreated the head shot and extensive laboratory calculations. He found when the brain and blood tissue exploded out of JFK’s head, they carried more momentum than was brought in by the bullet—in an opposite direction—as a rocket does when its jet fuel is ejected.”
The “recreation” of the head shot consisted of shooting 2-3 pound melons wrapped in strapping tape with the wrong gun (30.06) and the wrong ammunition (hunting instead of jacketed military ammunition). The “extensive laboratory calculations” consisted of a “back of the envelope calculation” Alvarez did in his hotel room at the 1969 meeting of the American Physical Society in St. Louis (Alvarez, 1976, 819). The calculation demonstrates that the jet-effect is kinematically allowed. It does not establish that ejected material “carried more momentum than was brought in by the bullet,” but only that this is possible.
The possibility of the jet-effect arises from the relationship between kinetic energy and momentum:
P=/2ME
Where P is momentum, M is mass and E is kinetic energy. If a large enough mass is ejected, it can carry more momentum than the income bullet deposits using only a fraction of the bullet’s energy. For example, if 0.2 kg of material were expelled carrying 10% of the bullet’s energy, it would carry a 7.8 kg-m/sec of momentum—enough to overcome the maximum possible momentum a Carcano bullet can deposit (6 kg-m/sec). Kinematics allows jet-effect to occur but only the detailed interaction of the bullet with the target determines if it actually occurs under a given set of circumstances.
Alvarez’s melon shooting experiment demonstrated that there are circumstances under which the jet-effect occurs. Dr. J.K. Lattimer (1980) did experiments using the correct rifle and ammunition. Lattimer claimed his targets—whether skulls or melons—“always” went backwards. Edgewood Arsenal did experiments on skulls (Edgewood 1964; HSCA, Vol. 1, 404). All skulls shot by Edgewood moved away from the shooter [i.e., they moved in the same direction the bullet was traveling].
Since the publication of Case Closed, there have been by Dr. Doug DeSalles and Dick Hobbs (DeSalles and Hobbs, 1994) and by us (Snyder, 1996). DeSalles and Hobbs shot tape-wrapped melons using a Carcano rifle and jacketed ammunition. In 11 shots they saw no jet-effect. In 1996 we undertook the resolve the apparent discrepancy. We shot a variety of melons with two different guns (30.06 and Carcano) and both jacketed and soft-nosed hunting ammunition. The results were surprisingly simple: Hunting bullets produced a jet-effect. Jacketed bullets did not produce a jet-effect. . . .
In his explanation of the head snap, Posner employs, in addition to the jet-effect, a so-called “neuromuscular spasm.” His full explanation might be described as jet-assisted neuromuscular spasm. Posner writes, “First, when the bullet destroyed the President’s cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurological impulses from the injured brain down the spine to every muscle in the body.”
The authority for this statement is the House Select Committee on Assassinations forensic pathology panel. The HSCA is not as definite as Posner: “The panel further recognizes the possibility of the body stiffening, with an upward and backward lunge, which might have resulted from a massive downward rush of neurologic stimuli to all efferent nerves” (HSCA, 1979, 174-175).
The HSCA also suggested that “decerebrate rigidity” or DR as described by Sherrington (1898) “could contribute to the President’s backward motion.” No practicing neurologist or neuro-scientist testified that DR or a “massive downward rush of neurologic stimuli” could explain the head snap. DR is due to the absence of nerve signals that keep opposed muscles in equilibrium rather than “a massive discharge of neurologic impulses.” Since JFK is positioned facing to the left at the moment of the fatal head shot, any “upward and backward lunge,” whatever its cause, would have pushed JFK to the right, not the left.
The HSCA also noticed that “such decerebrate rigidity as Sherrington described usually does not commence for several minutes after separation of the upper brain centers from the brain stem and spinal cord,” but included DR in their stew of possibilities anyway (HSCA, Vol. 7, 174). (“Case Open: Skepticism and the Assassination of JFK,” Skeptic, volume 6, number 4, 1998, pp. 52-54. NOTE: I was unable to duplicate some of the math symbols, so I used to closest approximation that my keyboard offered.)
Below is one of Dr. Art Snyder’s critiques of the jet-effect and neuromuscular-reaction theories. Dr. Snyder is a former physicist at Stanford University. He received his PhD in physics from the University of Illinois. He taught physics at Indiana University before joining the staff at Stanford University. Dr. Snyder wrote this critique in 1998 in response to Gerald Posner’s arguments about JFK’s head snap in Case Closed:Quote. . .
The measurements of Itek and Thompson are almost inconsistent with a shot from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The motion is so large that nearly all the momentum of the bullet is needed to account for it. However, quantitatively Thompson and Itek were mistaken. The apparent motion between Zapruder frames Z312 and Z313 is an artifact of the blurring of frame Z313. This is not to say that JFK’s head did not move forward between frames Z312 and Z313, but that the Z313 blur obscures the motion so that it cannot be measured using these frames. The actual forward motion (~0.3 meter/sec) can be estimated by comparing Z313 to Z314. It is about 1/3 the value obtained using the Itek or Thompson measurements—consistent with a Carcano bullet imparting ~1/3 its momentum and ~1/2 its energy.
. . .
No object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio-opaque object in the A-P X-Ray could be identified by the consultant on the lateral skull X-Rays. Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. After briefly speculating that the small metallic density behind the right eye in the lateral X-Rays might correspond to the bright radio-opaque density in the A-P X-Ray, this idea was abandoned because neither the locations nor the density/brightness of the 2 objects are consistent. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/96, Independent Review of JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs By Outside Consultant-Forensic Radiologist, p. 2, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=225)
The following day, February 7, 1996, Dr. Fitzpatrick met with ARRB staff. . . .
He continued to be disturbed and puzzled by the fact that the large radio-opaque object in the A-P skull X-Ray could not be located on the lateral skull X-Rays. At one point he speculated that perhaps this fragment fell off of the President’s body before the lateral X-Rays were taken. He opined that the 6.5 mm radio-opaque object in the A-P skull X-Ray looked “almost as if it had been machined off, or cut off of a bullet.” (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/96, p. 4)
From what I’ve seen, the WC apologists who post in this forum will never admit the validity of any fact or conclusion that refutes the lone-gunman theory, even if the evidence for that fact or conclusion is clear and compelling.
The 6.5 mm object on the autopsy AP skull x-ray is a good example of this refusal to acknowledge a fact and the conclusions that the fact clearly demands.
Obviously, the 6.5 mm object was planted on the AP x-ray after the autopsy in order to make it seem as though a 6.5 mm fragment had been deposited on the outer table of the skull, and in order to pad the case against Oswald, since Oswald allegedly used 6.5 mm ammo.
Dr. Snyder’s analysis is illogical. He claims that frame z313 is too blurry to get an accurate measure of how much the head moved forward between z312 and the blurry z313. Dr. Snyder’s solution? Compare the blurry z313 with z314.
If I may help out the confused Dr. Snyder, I think he meant to say that one should compare the non-blurry z312 with the non-blurry z314. I don’t know if this is necessary, but at least it’s a logical idea.
In addition, Dr. Snyder is just flat wrong that the WCC/MC bullet needs nearly all its momentum to push the head the amount reported by Itek.
I found some estimates of the mass of the human head as being 8 pounds, about 4 kilograms. I decided to make my own estimates. And I am sorry to report to the CTers of this forum that I did not do this by cutting my own head off but by measuring the circumference of my head. Both horizontally and vertically (over the top and under the chin). Assuming the same density of water (perhaps the density of bone is balanced by the sinuses) I came up with an estimate of 4.6 kilograms.
Doing some calculations, I find that moving a 4.6-kilogram mass forward with the momentum of a WCC/MC bullet going 1900 f/s, gives a calculated velocity of 1.3 meters per second. The observed Itek motion (which I recall was 2.1 inches) was 0.98 meters per second. So only about 75% of the momentum is needed, according to these calculations.
Further, there is no need to assume the entire head moved forward 2.1 inches. More likely, the head rotated forward, with the upper part of the head moving forward about 2.1 inches, and the lower part less.
All and all, by a rough estimate, only about half the momentum of the bullet is needed to move the head the observed amount in 55 milliseconds. This is inline with Ballistic Expert Larry Sturdivan’s estimate.
In actual truth, a WCC/MC bullet does have enough momentum to move JFK’s head forward about 2 inches in 55 milliseconds and still have enough momentum for its fragments to crack the windshield, dent the windshield frame, and slightly wound Mr. Tague. It is curious that the calculations are consistent with this hypothesis, as if this is exactly what happened.
By the way, my estimates and calculations:
• Rough circumference of the head 60 to 70 cm, call it 65 cm.
• Using the calculations for a sphere, volume of the head 4,600 cubic centimeters
• Mass of the head 4.6 kilograms
• Mass of the bullet 161 grains or 10.4 grams
• Velocity of the bullet, 1900 f/s or 579 meters per second
• Calculated velocity of the head after having 100% of the bullet’s momentum transferred, 1.31 meters per second
• Observed velocity of the head in the Itek study, a movement of 2.1 inches in 55 milliseconds, or 0.98 meters per second
And this does not account for the head nodding forward, and not having the entire head move a full 2.1 inches forward.
And by the way, I would expect a real professional physicist to provide the basis of his calculations, as I did (a former high school physics student), like the estimated mass of the head, mass of the bullet, velocity of the bullet, calculated velocity of the head and the observed velocity of the head, and not just state “almost all the momentum is required”, with no numbers to back him up. Perhaps Dr. Snyder was having an off day.
Some other explanation must be true. People carry all sorts of objects in their pockets.
Objects about a quarter of an inch across, and disk shaped, are pretty common. Would a breath mint show up? An Antacid? An Antacid commonly contains calcium, doesn’t it? That should show up in an X-Ray, I would think. Aspirin tablets are commonly that size. And pills, in general, or often disk shape to make them easy to shallow. Just a few possibilities. While moving and positioning the body for the X-Rays, something unnoticed might fall out and get X-Rayed. The technicians may then spot it, remove it and continue with their work. They might believe that the object would not shown in an X-Ray. In any case they needed to move things along so the Kennedy family can be allowed to leave with the body.
In the lower occipital-temporal area a fracture terminates when it runs into the “white patch,” an area of the skull which appears impossibly dense compared to the same region on the skull x-ray taken in 1960. (https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf)
I notice you said nothing about the ballistics tests that he and Dr. DeSalles did, both of which showed that jacketed ammo does not produce a jet effect.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that good ole Dr. Lattimer claimed that in his ballistics test, the target objects were propelled toward the gun every single time, a result that nobody has ever seen or claimed to have seen in any other test.
I notice you said nothing about Dr. Snyder's points regarding the neuromuscular-reaction theory, such as his point, which other scholars have also made, that "since JFK is positioned facing to the left at the moment of the fatal head shot, any 'upward and backward lunge,' whatever its cause, would have pushed JFK to the right, not the left."
And now to some of your comments about the 6.5 mm object:[/size]
Yes, yes, there just "must" be some other explanation, instead of the obvious, scientifically demonstrated one.
LOL! So it has come to this?! You are reduced to theorizing that Humes, Boswell, or Ebersole, for some reason, was holding an antacid or breath mint tablet during this part of the autopsy and accidentally dropped it under JFK's head, without anyone noticing, before the AP x-ray was taken! Or, that someone else somehow dropped a pill under JFK's head and nobody noticed it! And by amazing coincidence, the pill/tablet just happened to be 6.5 mm wide and thus became the largest "fragment" in the skull x-rays!!! Yet, somehow, this pill or tablet appears only as a tiny fragment on the lateral skull x-rays!!! This is the kind of silliness you must employ when you won't allow yourself to reach the obvious, logical, scientifically documented conclusion.
Let us review some facts about the scientific evidence of alteration in the autopsy skull x-rays:
* The 6.5 mm object is impossible to miss on the AP x-ray. It is the largest and brightest object on the x-ray. In fact, it is even brighter than JFK's fillings. That means it should be the densest "fragment," denser than the metallic fillings in JFK's death, but it is not. Think about that.
* The 6.5 mm object has no density itself, even though it is brighter than the dental fillings. Its only actual density comes from the small genuine fragment over which it was placed. So the object cannot be a pill or tablet or any other physical object. It is a ghosted image. Three medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed this fact with optical density (OD) measurements and via direct analysis of the object. It first occurred to Dr. Mantik to measure the object in this way because he uses OD measurements frequently in his work as a radiation oncologist.
The entrepreneur who did this had to be clever, however. If he had simply placed a counterfeit image onto the AP view willy-nilly, most likely it would not have been spatially consistent on the two views. But, by using something that was already there, Mother Nature solved the problem for him. He did not bother to alter the lateral--there was no need to. All he had to do was add the fake image right over the pre-existing shrapnel that the FBI had reported. Mother Nature had already located this image on both films consistent with reality, so he had no decisions to make. (Assassination Science, p. 135, available online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf)
You can tell from their replies that lone-gunman theorists here still do not understand why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP autopsy skull x-ray. The object was added not only to implicate Oswald but (1) to discredit the rear head entry wound described by the autopsy doctors and (2) to provide a superficial basis for future cooperative experts to place the rear head entry wound a whopping 10 cm/4 inches higher on the back of the head, which is exactly what the Clark Panel and the HSCA later did.
Clearly, at least some of the people running the cover-up recognized very quickly that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was very problematic for the lone-gunman tale. The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report that the wound was “slightly above” and 2.5 cm/1 inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). The EOP is the bump in the middle of the lower part of the back of the head.
Since a bullet fired from the alleged sniper’s window would have struck JFK’s head at a markedly downward angle (at least 15 degrees), JFK would have had to be leaning far forward to enable that bullet to exit at a location that was above the entry point and that was in the right parietal region.
Equally important, if not more important, the autopsy doctors said they identified the rear entry wound based on skull fragments that were brought to the autopsy late that night, and that part of the entry wound was contained in one of those fragments. This, of course, meant that some occipital bone had been blasted out of the skull, but the back-of-the-head autopsy photo shows no such damage. Also, an occipital bone fragment with part of any entry wound in it could lead to the logical inference that a bullet struck the occiput and then a second bullet struck the front of the head and blew out part of the occiput.
So, for these two reasons—the trajectory issue and the occipital-bone-fragment issue—the autopsy/EOP rear head entry wound had to be ditched and discredited.
Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film knows that it does not show Kennedy leaning far enough forward when the head shot strikes to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP and through the right parietal area.
Thus, the rear head entry wound had to be moved, and moved substantially, even if it meant making the autopsy doctors look like bumbling idiots. After all, how could anyone “mistake” a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm/4 inches lower, especially when they had two prominent features to use as reference points (the hairline and the EOP)?
Yet, the autopsy doctors vehemently challenged the FPP on the cowlick location. To a man, each autopsy doctor ardently rejected the higher location and insisted that they had seen and handled the rear entry site and were positive that it was only a fraction of an inch above the EOP. They each indicated that it was insulting and unreasonable to suggest that they had mislocated the wound by 4 inches.
Again, we don’t know if this was a 6.5 mm object. You cannot accurately estimate the size of an object in an X-Ray.
How does an X-Ray work? On one side of the head, you have an X-Ray source, that emits X-Rays from a point source. On the other side of the head is an X-Ray plate. Objects made of bone, metal and other material will cast a shadow on the X-Ray plate. If the object is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the X-Ray plate, it will cast a bigger shadow. If the same object is closer to the X-Ray place, and further from the X-Ray source, it will cast a smaller shadow.
So, if two pennies are taped to opposite sides of the head and the head is X-Rayed, the pennies will not appear to be the same size. The penny closer to the X-Ray source will appear bigger.
So, without knowing where in the head the object is, one cannot accurately know its size. One cannot tell if it was near the alleged entry wound or on the opposite side of the head. It would only be possible to say the object was near the alleged entry wound if it appeared in at least two X-Rays, showing the head from different directions. That is the only way it could be accurately placed in 3-D space.
On a separate point, if the conspirators wanted to establish a false entry location, they would need to modify at least two X-Rays, to establish its location in 3-D space. Indeed, to make it look real, they would need to modify all the X-Rays. This ‘fragment’ should not only appear on some X-Rays but not others. It would need to appear on all of them.
No. You have not read the works of a real ballistic expert, like Larry Sturdivan.
Bullet fragments do not travel in straight lines. They follow curved lines within a head.
So, either the EOP or cowlick entry works.
You don’t need to fake an entry wound to establish a straight line from the sniper’s nest, through the entry wound, through the exit wound.
And if this was done, what good would it do? Because the windshield frame and windshield are well above this line.
Larry Sturdivan felt that the EOP entry location was more probable, partly because that location would not require the fragments path to curve too much, to pass through the entry wound, pass through the exit wound, and hit or pass close to the windshield frame.
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. . . . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. (1 HSCA 401)
Sturvidan 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's remarks betrayed both his own ignorance of the medical evidence and the committee's careful manipulation of that evidence. 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)
My understanding is that the rear entry wound was in the back of the skull and not part of any skull fragments.
It was the exit wound, on the right side of the head near the front that was found in one of the skull fragments, fragmented by the explosive wound. It was these skull fragments that established the location of the exit wound.
There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. (p. 3)
No, not with the curved paths of bullet fragments, which are always curved when viewed in ballistic gel.
Again, you fail to understand that bullet fragment through head and ballistic gel do not follow straight line paths.
Larry Sturdivan believes the autopsy doctors were correct to challenge the cowlick location. The EOP location is probably correct. It actually requires the fragments to curve a lot less if the EOP location is the true location and not the cowlick location.
Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.
The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings. Walk:
Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.
The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings. Walk:
Good advice, Jerry! JohnM
Now that's rather juvenile. Your "Good advice, Jerry!" is in font size 36, which is hardly a standard font size. 12 is a standard font size.
Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating. JohnM
You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you? Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.[/size]
Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating.
JohnM
Let’s just deal with this point here. Let’s forget about the JFK assassination case for the moment, and narrowly focus on you claim that “Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays”.
Now, my understanding of X-Ray machines, is that you have:
1. An X-Ray source. This is essentially a point source of X-Rays. The X-Rays “beams” are not all parallel but radiate from this one point.
2. Next, you have an object you wish to X-Ray, like a head.
3. Finally, you have a X-Ray photographic plate.
The object to be X-Rayed is always in the middle. The X-Ray photographic place is always placed at right angles so it would be totally ‘lite up’ by the X-Ray source, if no object was in the way.
The photographic plate is like a negative. It shows black in the regions that were not blocked and received the X-Rays. And white in regions that were blocked by the object in the middle and received no or few X-Rays.
Now, let’s say we tape a penny to the front of the head and a penny to the back. We place them so they don’t both line-up with the X-Ray source. We place the head facing the X-Ray source.
An X-Ray of the head will produce two images of the pennies. The ‘front’ penny will cast a larger ‘shadow’, because it is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the plate.
Question 1:
Do you agree that the ‘frontal’ penny should produce a larger shadow?
Note: I think it will help if you draw on a piece of paper the diverting rays from the X-Ray source.
So, without knowing that the objects are pennies, without knowing their locations within the head in 3-D space, how can one tell the size of either object? How can one tell that these are objects of the same size at different distances, or two objects of different sizes at the same distance?
According to my calculation, if the X-Ray source was 2 meters from the X-Ray plate, and the center of the head only 20 cm from the place, three 6.5 mm objects, one at the very front of the head, one in the center, and one at the very back, will appear on the plate to be 7.8, 7.2 and 6.8 mm wide. The shadow cast on the image is larger the further it is from the plate. The shadow is always going to be wider than the true size.
How can one tell if any of these 3 images were made from an object that was 6.5 mm across? You can’t estimate this without knowing the location of the object within the head.
This is important point, because if one believes that the object in question precisely 6.5 mm across, then it might seem this is too much of a coincidence. But if one realizes that one cannot accurately estimate it’s size, it might be, 7.0 mm, or 6.5 mm or 6.1 mm across, depending on its location within the head, then this argument dissolves away.
I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance. (“Personal Notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy,” Finck’s report to General J.M. Blumberg, February 1, 1965, p. 2)
During his HSCA appearance, Boswell described it this way: They had to dissect JFK’s scalp to see the entrance wound in JFK’s skull bone, “But not too much,” Boswell explained, “because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here – there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.”
A few minutes later, Boswell elaborated: “There was a shelf and then a little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.” During a recorded call in 1994 (a copy of which is available at the National Archives), Boswell told one of the authors (Aguilar) the same thing: “The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”
Thus, detecting the point the fatal bullet struck the head required some reconstruction of JFK’s skull, and perhaps a little imagination, too. Because the presence of a bullet hole was evidently only detected after two pieces of JFK’s shattered occipital bone were pieced together and a gap, showing internal beveling, could be made out between them. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm. This article includes hyperlinks to sources for the quotes and statements)
The proposed entry site on the posterior skull presented yet another set of difficulties. According to testimony twice repeated by the second pathologist, J. Thornton Boswell, with Humes at his side, the right posterior entry wound of the skull was also reconstructed late that night. . . . The three bone fragments most likely arrived after this time [after Sibert and O’Neill left the autopsy]. At this early morning hour, then, based primarily on these bone fragments, the pathologists placed the entry site at 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP) and slightly above it. The smallest of the three late arriving bone fragments fit right into this site according to Boswell. (Assassination Science, p. 96, available at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf. For ease of reading, I have removed the footnotes, but you can check them in the book, which can be downloaded for free from the aforementioned URL)
The only function that I had was later in the evening, early in the morning--perhaps about twelve thirty a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I x-rayed these [the bone fragment and the neck wound]. These were the last X rays I took. (HSCA deposition, March 11, 1978, pp. 4-5)
This reminds me of when you kept asking me why I had not mentioned the irrelevant goat film to Dr. Zacharko while you kept refusing to deal with the obvious differences between the goat's reaction and JFK's reaction and the differences between goat anatomy and human anatomy.
Look, nobody but nobody says there is any doubt about the size of the 6.5 mm object. You are just making up an issue out of thin air. Let's put it this way: The Clark Panel had no problem determining the object's width. Nor did the HSCA. Nor did Dr. Mantik. Nor did Dr. Chesser. Nor did Dr. Fitzpatrick. Nor did Dr. Robertson. Nor did Dr. Riley. Nor did Larry Sturdivan. This is a non-issue.
You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you? Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.[/size]
I think that one of the reasons that they moved the entry wound up was due to the fragment particle trail shown in the right lateral skull x-ray. If a line is drawn from the Warren Commission entry site and the proposed exit site, you’ll notice that the particle trail doesn’t correspond with these sites. The prominent particle trail is located in the upper portion of the skull.
Now if you do the same for the HSCA entry and exit sites, you’ll notice that the line is closer to the particle trail, but it still doesn’t seem to correspond.
On the frontal view, the AP x-ray, the particle trail is located high in this image, which is probably in the scalp and meninges. There is a lot going on in this image, with multiple skull fractures, and much of the skull missing over the right frontal, parietal, occipital regions. The orbital rim is fractured on both sides. The vomer bone (nasal) is fractured. You can see that there is brain shadow on the left side, but you really can’t see any on the right side. The burn marks are located on the right side, lateral to the orbital wall. There is low density, or missing bone behind the nasal bones and at the lower edge of the left orbit – and I agree with Dr. Mantik that this suggests missing occipital bone, extending over to the left side. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)
No one ever claimed the ‘object’ was 6.5 mm across?
The truth is, the size is probably between 6.0 mm and 7.0 mm. And possibly a bit smaller than 6.0 mm. Or a bit larger than 7.0 mm. It should be called a 6 to 7 mm object, not a 6.5 mm fragment. To say it is a 6.5 mm fragment, or a 6.500 fragment, implies its size is known to great precision, and it would be a massive coincidence, that it should match the diameter of a WCC/MC with such precision, by sheer chance. But I suppose CTers will continue to call it a 6.5 mm fragment just like they call the Single Bullet Theory the Magic Bullet Theory. Because the label they put on things is very important to propaganda.
Lots of people, both LNers and CTers have called it a 6.5 mm fragment, but only because early CTers were successful in getting this label established early on. But I will not call it such in the future. Not until it is proven to be somewhere between 6.45 and 6.55 mm in size. Which will never happen. To me it is a 6 to 7 mm object (no, not even a 6 to 7 mm fragment).
This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter. . . . (p. 11)
P.S. Larry Sturdivan argued that this was an object that was accidentally placed in or on the head. But most LNers say it is a defect in the X-Ray, which I understand does happen. That is one reason multiple X-Rays are taken. So, such defects can be more easily identified when they appear in only one X-Ray but not the others. I don’t take a strong stand on either theory, except to note that an accidental object is possible, when the “object” in question does not look like any kind of fragment but like something that is commonly carried in a pocket.
I invite everyone to watch the documentary "JFK - The Smoking Gun" by Colin McLaren. The video can be found on line and it is an hour and a half long. It explains the fragments, JFK's head movement, the cover-up and more. People spend hours writing on this site, you all can certainly spend 90 min to watch the documentary and learn something very interesting.
I invite everyone to watch the documentary "JFK - The Smoking Gun" by Colin McLaren. The video can be found on line and it is an hour and a half long. It explains the fragments, JFK's head movement, the cover-up and more. People spend hours writing on this site, you all can certainly spend 90 min to watch the documentary and learn something very interesting.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood which frags you were talking about. I was thinking the frags in the skull x-ray.
Hickey was seated on the back of the backseat with the AR 15, then he stood on the back seat. Two secret service agents saw Hickey with the gun and one the thought he had fired it. Over ten people in the motorcade smelled gunsmoke. It explains the jerking backward of JFK's head also.
The fact that the entry wound measurement was noted in the autopsy as 6 mm tells me it couldn’t have been a 6.5 mm round but a 5.65 diameter would explain an AR 15 round.
For example, Donahue assumed the 6.5 mm object was a genuine fragment that came from the bullet that struck the curb early in the shooting, but we now know that the object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment in the back of the skull.
Please excuse my ignorance but please explain what you mean by “ghosted image” in this situation.
One thing I would like to mention is that JFK said “I’ve been hit”, this was before the magic bullet so I assumed that he was hit with a frag from the bullet that hit the pavement. He would not have been able to say anything after being hit with the magic bullet.
Donahue uncritically accepted the Clark Panel and the HSCA's relocation of the rear head entry wound by a whopping 4 inches, but we now know that the skull x-rays show no entry wound at the proposed higher location, and that when the HSCA showed the back-of-the-head photo to Finck, he went so far as to question how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken during the autopsy.
I don’t know that it matters if the bullet hit JFK high in the back of the head or 4 inches lower. He was leaning forward and downward. A bullet coming almost perfectly horizontal would do what it did to JFK. A frangible round of course, not a fmj bullet.
The fact that the entry wound measurement was noted in the autopsy as 6 mm tells me it couldn’t have been a 6.5 mm round but a 5.65 diameter would explain an AR 15 round.
Lets sum it up: with the diameter of the hole in the back of JFK’s head, the explosive destruction of JFK’s head and direction (the physics of it, an explosion in his head), Hickey’s behavior after, the cover up by the SS, the smoke smelled in the motorcade, the witness’s that saw Hickey with the gun, the one SS Agent that thought Hickey fired off a round, what was going on in the autopsy room with Dr Ebersol and Jerrome tells you a cover up was in progress. And who is pushing the cover up and getting the body out of Dallas, the Secret Service, why?
I agree it was a frangible bullet, not an FMJ one, but even Donahue admitted that the EOP entry site, i.e., the low entry site, was very problematic for the lone-gunman scenario. Moving a wound by 4 inches on the back of a skull makes a huge difference in trajectory. JFK was leaning forward, but not nearly far enough forward to make the EOP entry site line up with the sixth-floor window, as Donahue correctly noted.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/head-wounds-lateral-view-JFK-F-137.jpg) | (https://jfk-donahue.weebly.com/uploads/8/2/8/1/8281037/_2776069_orig.jpg) |
Another key issue here is the fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays. The autopsy doctors said the trail began at the EOP site and went upward to a point just above the right eye. But no such trail is now visible on the x-rays, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about a trail 4 inches higher at the top of the skull. So either they were staggeringly incompetent and mistook the high fragment trail as being 4 inches lower and starting at the EOP site, or they just brazenly lied about the trail's location, or the lower trail was removed from the x-rays.
Plus, the revised rear entry point has been discredited. We now know that even some of the HSCA's radiologic consultants doubted the higher entry point. Moreover, the ARRB experts refuted it, as have many private medical doctors who have examined the x-rays at the National Archives.
I totally agree. Bullets always make entry holes in bone that are slightly larger than their diameter. Donahue, being a ballistics expert, knew this and spotted this issue when he read the autopsy report. The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Fatteh2x.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Example of skin elasticity: The entrance wound caused by the 0.32 caliber bullet is much smaller than the bullet itself. |
They didn't say the "bone shrunk", Ole Misrepresentator. They said the 6 millimeters "was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull".
That passage cited Dr. Humes' testimony.
"The size of the defect in the scalp, caused by a projectile could vary from
missile to missile because of elastic recoil and so forth of the tissues.
However, the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this case,
the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm., so I would feel
that that would be the absolute upper limit of the size of this missile, sir."
"This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic
recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than the caliber of the
missile that traversed it."
See how Humes said elastic recoil applied to the scalp, not the skull. Bugliosi termed the reference to "skull" in the Report to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."
Since there was no measurement made on bared bone, Humes' 6x15 measurement would seem to be proof that Humes only measured the skull entry wound with the scalp in place and that he never measured with the EOP bared. It would also stand to reason that he located the "EOP" bump (mistakenly) through touch of the scalp.
Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull. (p. 4)
So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area. (2 H 352)
The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it. (WCR, p. 86)
Dr. Fisher made another fascinating discovery, to do with the width of a Carcano full metal jacket round and that of a .223 round that suits an AR-15 rifle. The Carcano round is 6.5mm wide, hence it is referred to as a 6.5 calibre round. When shot, it will leave an entry hole larger than 6.5mm wide in the wound. Due to the natural elasticity of skin and (in the case of JFK’s rear head wound) skull bone, the entry wound would be around 7mm wide. Whereas the .223 round is a 5.56mm wide projectile. Such a bullet would leave an entry wound 6mm wide.
The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width. A stunning fact! (JFK: The Smoking Gun, 2013, pp. 69-70)
This is silly word parsing. So the skull "recoiled" from 6.5 mm or larger "back" ("REcoiled") to 6.0 mm. What is the difference between saying it "recoiled" to 6.0 mm and saying that it shrunk to 6.0 mm?
But, I'll be happy to stipulate that the WC claimed the skull bone "recoiled" from 6.5 mm or larger to 6.0 mm. Bullet holes made in bone do not "recoil." They are always slightly larger than the diameter of the bullet.
Here is another prime example of your showing yourself to be poorly read on the case and of your habit of repeating debunked claims.
Bugliosi should have read the autopsy report, because he would learned that Humes said that the hole in the bone was 6.0 mm, not just the hole in the scalp. Let us read it--again. I have already pointed this out in this very thread, but I guess you missed it, or forgot, or your brain just would not process it, so let us read it again. Let us read where Humes stated in the autopsy report that the wound in the skull corresponded to the wound in the scalp, that the wound in the bone was a "corresponding wound" to the wound in the scalp:
Humes repeated this point in his WC testimony, noting that they determined that the entry wound in the skull corresponded to the wound in the scalp by reflecting the scalp:
If the hole in the skull had been larger or smaller than the hole in the scalp, Humes would not have called it a "corresponding wound." Why? Because if it were a different size, it would not correspond to the wound in the scalp and thus could not be called a "corresponding wound." If Wound A is 8 mm x 4 mm and Wound B is 8 mm x 3 mm, they could not be called "corresponding wounds"--because, well, they do not correspond, because they are different sizes.
I mean, good grief, even the WC understood plain English here and understood that they had to explain how the hole in the skull could be smaller than the diameter of the alleged 6.5 mm bullet:
The WC, ignoring Humes's observation that there was a "corresponding wound through both tables of the skull," even proceeded to cite Dr. Finck as their authority for claiming that "when a bullet enters the skull (cranial vault) at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side" (WCR, p. 86) Which, of course, did not really directly address the issue but left the reader to infer that it was not strange that the skull hole was smaller than the bullet that allegedly made it.
Australian detective Colin McLaren addresses this drivel, pointing out that bullet holes in bone are always larger than the diameter of the bullet:
The rear head entry wound was made by a bullet that was smaller than 6.5 mm in diameter. If Oswald's alleged ammo had caused the wound, it would have been 6.75 mm to 7.5 mm in diameter. Good heavens, just get over this fact and move on.
If the Commission had used the word "shrunk", you might have a point. But as usual you don't.
They not only used the word "recoil" but also a citation to Humes' testimony. That's where we find out that Humes is actually taking about the skin having elastic recoil, not the bone of the skull. And that's why Bugliosi said it appeared to him to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."
Now show us where Humes measured the entry wound on the skull itself.
That's nice. But Humes didn't measure the skull wound. He saw it briefly after reflection and from underneath; no rulers involved.
If Humes had measured the entry wound on bare bone,
why did he guess at the size of it based on the size of the scalp wound:
"the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this
case, the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm"
Near as I can tell, the two holes "corresponded" in their placement through a brief visual observation. Only the scalp wound was measured. You really think they should have checked the dimensions of a skull entry hole that was directly beneath a scalp entry hole?
Just substitute the word "skull" with "scalp" and it'll then relate to the passage's own Humes citation, his only measurement of the entry wound, skin elasticity, and why Bugliosi thought it was a typo or loose wording.
I don't see any inference. The paragraph is talking about beveling.
He's full of crap. It can hardly be "natural elasticity of skin" if a 6.5mm bullet is--in Mclaren's world--supposed to make a scalp wound 7mm wide. Furthermore, elasticity means a 5.56mm bullet ought to leave a 5mm wide hole in the scalp. McLaren must be using Trump Mathematics.
Does McLaren's book have a reference for: "The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width"? Because all I have is Humes' measurement of the scalp wound.
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. (p. 1)
Humes thought the skull wound probably was a little bigger ("approximately 6 to 7 mm") in width than the scalp wound measurement.
It can't be 6mm because that would be the same, not bigger. So now we're easily getting to 6.5 to 7mm for the skull wound.
Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap. JohnM
Orthochromatic film, unfiltered, records blue very lightly and red very darkly. This makes perfect sense in [autopsy photos] F1 through F5. Yet, here's a supposedly bloodied scalp in F6 and F7 recorded as light gray. This can be done with a red filter on ortho film, but the blood drops on the towel show me this is not the case. The scalp can't be gray and three bloody spots still be dark if a filter was used. It is common to use ortho film in forensic photography to show differences and details in red and blue areas. But this is no proof. The record declares one type of film, and the photos declare either another or fraud. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, p. 584)
They [the autopsy photos] also show Groden's color shots to be frauds. Let me explain.
1) Let's say it was pan b/w. F6 and F7 would have to be shot with a blue filter to lighten the stripe. That would darken the supposedly bloody scalp. You can't have it both ways, i.e., light red and light blue, so there's no red filter either. This would not work. So, if it's truly pan film, then the scalp is not bloody skin but brain matter.
2) Let's say it's ortho film. The blue stripe will always be light and the red will always be dark. No filter is required if the scalp is really brain tissue, but a red one is still needed to lighten blood. But here the bloody spots prove this is not the case once again. So do the bloody marks on his shoulder.
So, here's the result: They probably used ortho film and no filtering of any kind. that is brain and not scalp. We can see that no combination of film and filtration can give you b/w photos that will jibe with Groden’s colors. they have to be fake. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, pp. 584-585)
Again, you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s. Here are just a few of the problems that modern research has uncovered with the autopsy photos of the head:
* F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors never even mentioned.
* The skull x-rays show a sizable amount of frontal bone missing, but no such damage is evident in the extant autopsy photos that show the face and the front of the head (F1, F6, F7, and G1).
* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." (p. 3)
However, neither of the back-of-head photos (F3 and F5) shows any such damage. In F3, the only large defect is clearly above and mostly forward of the right ear. No part of the wound even comes close to the occipital region in F3 and F5.
* The autopsy photos F6, F7, and G1, i.e., the right-profile and top-of-head pictures, show impossible colors. In the color versions of these photos, there are three large bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos, the stripes are white or light gray. This is a photographic impossibility with orthochromatic film. With such film, red turns to black, not to white or light gray. Professional photographer Steve Mills has said the following about this problem:
Mills goes on to discuss indications of fraud in the Groden color autopsy photos in relation to the stripes and the scalp:
* We now know that numerous autopsy witnesses told the HSCA that the autopsy photos of the head did not show the large head wound that they recalled seeing.
* We now know that when the HSCA FPP showed F3 to Dr. Finck to convince him that he had erred by a staggering 4 inches in his description of the rear head entry wound, Finck would have none of it and even questioned how F3 had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy!
* We now know that nearly every single autopsy witness interviewed by the HSCA said the large head wound was in the back of the head, not on the side or top of the head.
* We now know that several autopsy witnesses drew wound diagrams of the large head wound for the HSCA, and they drew the wound in the back of the head. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who not only watched the autopsy but reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.
* We now know that the autopsy witnesses agreed with the Dallas witnesses that the large wound was in the back of the head, not on the side of the head.
* We now know, thanks to a released WC transcript, that Jackie Kennedy told the WC that on the way to Parkland Hospital, she was trying to hold together the back of her husband's head, and that there was no damage, "nothing," in the front of the head.
* Clint Hill was in the unique position of having seen JFK's large head wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and then again at Bethesda Hospital. He was called to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds, and he once again said the large wound was in the back of the head.
* Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who packed JFK's large head wound with cotton and who then wrapped his head and body for placement in the coffin, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that she saw no damage to the side or top of the head.
* ALL of the Parkland JFK medical treatment reports, written hours after the shooting and dated 11/22/63, say the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head, and four of them specify that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound. This is crucial because cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue.
WC apologists are conditioned to say "they were all mistaken" in response to this massive eyewitness evidence, but reasonable people don't buy that absurd explanation. A few witnesses in any crime will often be mistaken, but we are talking about three groups of witnesses in three different locations who all said the same thing about the large head wound, and most of those witnesses were either federal agents or medical personnel. So the lame line that "they were all mistaken" just will not cut it for any rational, objective person.
And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6 and F7 show impossible colors.
I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.
At the end you said:
"And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
and F7 show impossible colors."
Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.
I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.
At the end you said:
"And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
and F7 show impossible colors."
Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.
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."
Dealey Plaza | Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm) | |
Photographic Evidence | Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm) | |
Parkland and Bethesda | Link (http://Parkland and Bethesda) |
And, uh, just FYI, I copied and pasted only a few lines of that long list of evidence. I typed most of it.
You should take a few writing courses;
learn a little English. While you're at it, get someone to explain to you the difference between "imply" and "infer," because you don't seem to know the difference.
Now, the paragraph you quote and the paragraph before it were summary/closing paragraphs. Yes, I was aware that I had mentioned the items in the second summary paragraph earlier in my long reply, but I had not yet mentioned them in my closing. I guess you could not distinguish between the body of my reply and the closing/summary.
I notice you still have not tried to defend your comical statement that Humes did not need to measure the entry wound in the skull and only glanced at it. How long have you been studying this case? A few weeks? This is the kind of nonsense that one would expect from a newcomer who had only read a handful of books on the case.
One reason that autopsy doctors have to carefully study bullet holes in skulls is to examine them for beveling, chipping, etc. One reason that pathologists have to measure bullet holes in skulls is that the scalp hole and the skull hole will not always correspond.
We both know why you are straining and reaching so badly here: You simply cannot afford to admit that Humes measured the skull hole. Nor can you admit that his use of the term "corresponding wound" was common forensic verbiage to say that the skull hole was the same size as the scalp hole.
You can't afford to admit these things because this would mean that the rear head entry wound was not made by a 6.5 mm missile.
And I would bet good money that six months from now, if someone were to post another thread on this issue, you would repeat the same nonsensical claims and just hope that nobody viewing the thread knew better.
I had not seen or heard of the “spray” of the tiny fragments before and the direction. Then if that is true then James Files did it after all. I have not seen what a mercury tipped bullet would do to someone’s head but I would like to sew this part of it up.
I think in the case of Hickey and the secret service, I think they though they did it. Hickeys gun went off at the same time of the head shot, thus the cover up. I don’t know when the particle paths were discovered but I think Hickey might have gone to his grave thinking he killed JFK, poor bastard.
As far as you not seeing any credible evidence that Hickey fired the gun: 1. the gun smoke in the motorcade, could not have come from the grassy knoll, wind direction was wrong.
2. Several witnesses saw him with the gun and one thought he fired it.
It makes sense he stood up on the back seat, the car accelerated or decelerated and he lost his balance and grabbing for something to hold onto, he squeezed off a round, where it went, who knows.
This scenario works with everything I said happened with a shot from Hickey. Only part of my previous scenario is Hickeys shot did not hit JFK but it explains everything else; smelling gun smoke in the motorcade, seeing Hickey with the gun, etc.
The orientation described here is consistent with the historical orientation, with the X-rays, with Humes's comment about the notch, with Boswell's two drawings (one at the autopsy and one for the ARRB), and even with Angel's drawings, but not with Baden's orientation. From this photograph, we can be certain that the back of the head was blown out, quite dramatically in fact, just like all of the witnesses said. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that a frontal headshot led to this injury. This deduction, of course, also corroborates the recollections of all of those new and old witnesses who saw autopsy photographs with such a massive defect, which, in turn, means that other photographs really have disappeared. ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," p. 83)
Well, since I don't think they were doctored and you CTs haven't proven otherwise, it is diversion.
Critics' opinions can be mistaken. Photos and the Zapruder film (all authentic) are more reliable. An example, since you brought it up, is the "back-of-the-head" witnesses:
The McAdams site has been tracking this for years, comparing critics' claims with actual evidence.
Dealey Plaza Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm) Photographic Evidence Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm) Parkland and Bethesda Link (http://Parkland and Bethesda)
Like making your font size bigger than everyone else? Mr. Decorum.
I'm still waiting for you to produce a measurement of the bared-bone skull. Maybe the autopsy report, WC or HSCA. Your idea that "corresponding" automatically means he would have measured the bone wound as well doesn't cut it. Not when Humes is telling the Commission:
"When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
quite similar to the defect in the skin."
Nothing about a ruler being used to measure the skull wound. It was "quite similar", meaning in appearance and location on the head.
They actually teach that "corresponding" means confirmed to the micro-millimeter in forensic pathology courses? Gee, who knew.
This is all too mindful of your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".
And you want to falsely have people believe the scalp measurements were identical to skull measurements never made.
That way you can disingenuously claim that a 6.5mm bullet couldn't have caused the skull inshoot.
Well, a few folks around here are certainly on to you.
We have proved they were doctored. You just won't acknowledge the scientific evidence that they have been doctored.
We have proved they were doctored. You just won't acknowledge the scientific evidence that they have been doctored.
If you have to fall back on McAdams' amateurish and misleading research, you know you're in trouble. Tell me:
Where does McAdams address the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB?
Where does he address the 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital treatment reports?
Where does he explain how the mortician, the guy who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the right parietal and temporal region for an orange-sized wound in the occiput?
Where does he explain the manmade white patch over the right-rear part of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, which is 1100 times brighter than any other part of the skull in the autopsy x-rays and in JFK's authentic 1960 skull x-rays?
Where does he explain that in authentic x-rays, the brightest part of the skull is never more than two or three times brighter than the darkest part of the skull?
Where does he explain the OD measurements that have been done on the autopsy skull x-rays by three different medical doctors and that all prove that those x-rays give measurements that are physically impossible for an authentic, unaltered original x-ray?
Where does he explain Dr. Ebersole's report that an occipital bone fragment arrived late in the autopsy?
Where does he explain the vanishing lower fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw?
Again, if it bothers you so much, don't read my replies.
I have already quoted a medical dictionary for you that says that in medical usage "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding). Did you forget that? Or were just hoping that people who read your reply would not have read my previous replies?
Two wounds can't "fit" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "match" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "agree with" each other if they are not the same size, right?
You see, the problem is that you just cannot admit that Humes used "corresponding" in its typical medical meaning of "matching" or "fitting." You claim that Humes simply meant "similar." But if he had meant "similar," he would have said "similar" instead of "corresponding."
I mean, heck, I'm not a doctor, but I would never misuse "corresponding" to mean "similar" even if I were describing, let's say, a hole that started in my siding and continued through my dry wall. If the hole in the siding were, say, 8 x 12 mm, and the hole in the dry wall were 10 x 14 mm, I would not say the hole in the dry wall "corresponded" to the hole in the siding. I would say the dry-wall hole was similar in size to the siding hole, but I would never say the two holes were "corresponding" holes. That's just common sense and good English.
Oh, wow. Really? This again? In point of fact, the bunching would have to be virtually millimeter for millimeter. As we both know, and by your own admission, I only slightly modified my argument to say that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in "nearly identical correspondence" instead of "millimeter for millimeter." There is very little difference between "millimeter for millimeter" and "nearly identical correspondence."
I might add that you did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned. At first you claimed they did not. Then, you went silent on the point after I proved that they did.
You don't know this. You are just assuming this because otherwise your case collapses. Humes's wording, if you're willing to be honest, clearly indicates that he did measure the entry wound in the skull, or else he would not have described the wound as a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound.
Furthermore, I have asked you several times now to explain why Humes would have measured the large defect in the skull but not the entry wound. Why do you keep ducking this question? Why on earth would Humes have measured the exit wound in the skull but not the entry wound? Why?
You're the one being disingenuous. You want to twist "corresponding" to merely mean "similar," even though I've quoted for you a medical dictionary that says "corresponding" means "agreeing with, matching, or fitting." If two wounds are different sizes, they cannot be said to "agree with, fit, or match" each other. But you can't even gather up enough honesty to admit such an obvious, common-sense point.
I am not the one who has been caught posting ludicrous diagrams that destroy my own arguments, such as when you posted the "final" HSCA SBT diagram that showed the alleged magic bullet hitting the body at a downward angle,
that put the back wound well above the throat wound, and that put the throat wound noticeably below the throat!
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145-throat-area-labelled.jpg) |
I am not the one who did not even know that JFK's rear coat and shirt holes align. You are.
I am not the one who denied that the HSCA PEP found only incredibly tiny differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos, even though those miniscule differences are documented for all to see in the HSCA PEP's report, and even though I have posted the measurements twice. You are.
I am not the one who looked right at the HSCA PEP's Penrose measurements and then claimed that the Backyard measurements do not show marked divergences from the Dallas Arrest, Marine, New Orleans, and Russia measurements, even though some of the variances over 200%. You are.
And on and on and on I could go.
The layer of abdominal wall fat noted above is cropped out of the Fox copies, but was clearly visible on the archive photos. The layer of fat allows orientation to the angle of the camera, and makes it much easier to orient oneself to the view of the skull. The photographer was situated at the head of the table, directing the camera toward the feet, and focusing on the inner skull. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)
In this section I present proof that this photograph (B& W # 17, # 18 and color #44, #45 in the current collection) shows the posterior skull. Even Robert McClelland, M.D., insisted, after his visit to the Archives, that the collection included a view of the large hole as seen at Parkland Hospital. It must have been F8. During their initial inventory review (signed on 10 November 1966), the pathologists labeled this as a posterior view: "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp." Furthermore, in his ARRB deposition (reported to me by Douglas Home), Humes located the entry wound (in the posterior skull) toward the bottom of this photograph (as oriented here). This agrees with my interpretation, but disagrees with Baden, who described it more as a view from the left side. . . .
On the other hand, if F8 is the back of the head, then the line segment BA is the mid-saggital line. There is further confirmation that this is the correct. While at the Archives, I viewed this photograph and its near twin (most views are pairs, taken with the camera slightly displaced in successive views) with a stereo viewer, which, for this view, is particularly illuminating. The bone surface (left of midline) was quite rounded, as would be expected for the occiput. In addition, the fractured bone islands at the right front (labeled C and D) could now be appreciated in 3D. After some staring, I realized that there were only two, and that they corresponded to the two bone islands on the frontal X-ray (also labeled C and D). Their sizes, shapes, and locations all fit perfectly. But one additional feature surprised me. In the color photographs at the Archives, there was more to see beyond the top edge of the film than is visible here. I finally realized that I was looking tangentially across the chest and abdomen. I could actually see a nipple (extending out into space in 3D) and the biggest surprise; I could see fat pads folded back from the abdominal incision. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)
There is a fascinating and revealing follow-up to be told about the November 1966 review of the autopsy materials. As I mentioned earlier, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed the back of the head, i.e., that the back of the head was the area that was closest to the camera when the photo was taken. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture.
Well, someone figured out that admitting that F8 was any kind of a back-of-the-head photo was devastating to the autopsy report. So, less than three months later, there was a second review of the autopsy materials, only this time, according to the report on the review, only Humes and Boswell did the review.
The second review allegedly occurred on January 26, 1967. Guess what happened? Just take a guess. According to the memo that Humes and Boswell signed about the review, Humes and Boswell now decided that F8 showed the right parietal exit wound described in the autopsy report, i.e., that it was taken from a point in front of the head to show the exit wound on the right side of the head!
When the ARRB asked Humes and Boswell about this stunning change, their answers were equally stunning: They both said they were certain that an autopsy photo had been taken of the occipital region after the brain had been removed, and that that occipital-region photo showed the EOP entry site. Moreover, Humes said he did not remember doing the second review of the autopsy materials! He remembered doing the first review, but not the second review, and Boswell, who was sitting right next to Humes during this ARRB interview, did not contradict him. Furthermore, when they were then asked during the ARRB interview to orient F8, they said they could not do so, that the picture was too confusing, and Boswell opined that it was “terrible” photo.
For one thing, these facts raise the question of whether there really was a January 1967 review of the autopsy materials, and of whether Humes and Boswell were just ordered to sign a memo that documented a review that never happened. Of course, it could be that the review did occur that the Humes and Boswell just did not want to admit that they had so drastically contradicted their November 1966 review.
Both Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. David Mantik have viewed the original F8 photo in the National Archives. They have confirmed that it is a photo of the back of the head and that it shows a substantial amount of occipital bone missing. They note that the original F8 in the Archives is an uncropped version of the published version of F8, and that the uncropped original makes it easier to determine the photo’s orientation. Dr. Chesser:
Dr. Mantik provides a detailed analysis of the F8 photo in “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” pp. 80-83. Dr. Mantik studied F8 and its “near-twin” photo at the National Archives using a stereo viewer. By stereo viewing and by comparing F8 with the skull x-rays, he was able to establish conclusively that F8 shows that considerable bone is missing from the occipital region:
Scientific? That's rich, coming from someone who I wouldn't be surprised denies climate change and the theory of evolution.
So nothing wrong with the Back-of-the-Head analysis I pointed you to?
Again, you fail to answer why Humes didn't provide any skull-entry measurements and why he was telling the Commission:
"When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
quite similar to the defect in the skin."
Why does Humes refer to the bone entry wound as "quite similar" to the scalp wound rather than identical if he had measurements for both? Why does Humes refer to elastic recoil of skin if he had a 6mm width of the bone wound?
Try to focus on facts, not semantics.
You actually wrote "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Even taking the measurements you posted:
"The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar
and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt
is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline."
... means a vertical difference of 9mm and lateral difference of about 15mm. I don't see how you can equate that with "millimeter for millimeter". You must be doing this just for the sake of argument. Or you have a serious resistance to schooling.
I "did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned" and that I "claimed they did not"? I said the "jacket and shirt had similar but naturally-random displacements, not exact".
A review of our discussion will show that what t I took issue with was your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".
Just say you were wrong, Donald. Rather than justifying it in need of only a slightly modification.
Humes measured the large gaping wound before the scalp was reflected. The only measurements after reflection mentioned in the autopsy report are that of a fracture line and "numerous fragments".
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. (p. 1)
I The "upward angle" was to do with Clyde Snow's anatomical position only. Canning used a "wounding position" for the President's posture.
I Like Canning and the HSCA would approve a drawing with the exit point below the throat.
The fence area is almost on the same plane as the camera plane. If the same background were used, as some critics claimed, there should be zero differences. But changes in camera/subject position, the tilt of the camera and so forth induced the minor differences the HSCA determined.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scattergram.gif)
Depends on how one looks at the Penrose graph. I see a cluster for all the Oswald photos in one corner. You, on the other hand, magnify a corner view. You really think Oswald's head and features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos?
The Backyard Photos differed from the others in clarity, shadow cast, resolution, etc. And so their position on the graph was due to less precise measurement of features.
Dr. SNOW: The exactness of the approach depends to a large extent on the quality
of materials that we are given. If the photographs are of poor quality or if there is
variation in the subject's pose or the apparent age and features of that sort, we
are apt to be less firm in our conclusions than we are if we are given good quality
photographs of the individual and uniform poses.
Aren't all photo sets roughly-equal in divergence from the Russia photo set. Doesn't the New Orleans photo set almost match the "Mean Distance" of the Backyard Photos?
"There some missing values for the three profile views of Oswald. This is because
certain measurements necessary for calculating these indices cannot be obtained
from a profile photograph. Also, a few indices could not be calculated for the
full-face photographs because lighting, image clarity, or other factors would not
permit the necessary measurements to be made with sufficient accuracy."
I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle.
But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.
It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/sbtbogus3.jpg)
Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.
You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted.
Yes, of course, the camera changed positions for each picture.
I take it this is going to be your fallback dodge every time I ask you why you have not addressed the scientific evidence developed by medical experts/scientists such as Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Ryan, Weatherly, Charnin, Costella, Chambers, etc., etc.?
Witness | Aguilar | McAdams | ||
Dr Marion Jenkins | skull wound rearward on the right side | So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's not sure which. | ||
Dr James Carrico | Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath |
| ||
Dr David Osborne | Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull" | But Aguilar does not mention -- perhaps because he's not aware of -- Osborne's interview with the HSCA. It's Record Number 180-10102-10415, Agency File Number 013623. The document reports "In regard to the head wound Osborne said that there was no question that the bullet entered the back of the head and blew the top off of the head." Why Aguilar would list so clear a "top of the head" witness as being a "back of the head" witness is puzzling. | ||
Capt James Stover | Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull" |
| ||
Dr Robert Grossman | He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput |
| ||
Dr Charles Baxter | [In] a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." [In testimony], that sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) |
| ||
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Dr Paul Peters | "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. |
|
McAdams' "analysis" does not even touch most of the relevant evidence. That is why I asked you to tell me where McAdams addresses the evidence mentioned in the list of questions that I posed to you, all of which you snipped and ducked.
How can anyone credibly discuss the autopsy materials without first explaining the hard scientific evidence that the white patch in the right-rear on the lateral skull x-rays is indisputably manmade? How can anyone dare to defend the lone-gunman fiction about the large head wound without addressing the fact that it has been firmly established that autopsy photo F8 shows considerable bone missing from the occiput?
As I've said before, it's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You don't realize--or don't care--that your claims have been turned into myths by a mountain of new research and new disclosures.
And I again point out that this is not what Humes said in the autopsy report. If you admit the meaning of the medical terms he uses, he *did* provide a measurement for the rear entry hole in the skull--he did so by specifying that it was a corresponding wound to the wound in the scalp.
Medical definitions are not "semantics." (Well, maybe to you they are.) There is nothing semantical about the definition of "corresponding" that I quoted from a medical dictionary. It is straightforward. You just can't admit it because you are pathologically determined to cling to the myth that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet hit JFK in the back of the head, never mind that it behaved nothing like an FMJ bullet.
I’m guessing you are not aware that we now know that at the autopsy, even the autopsy doctors noted that the head bullet did not behave like an FMJ missile.
Here we go again with your repeating claims that have already been refuted, and that I have refuted in this forum. As I already documented for you, Frazier said the holes overlap and form a single bullet hole. He said this in plain English. I quoted his testimony to you.
So, now that we've reinvented the wheel because of your refusal to be honest, I will repeat the point that the fact that the holes overlap almost perfectly and form a single hole, the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in nearly perfect correspondence, and would have had to bunch over 2 inches, to produce a single hole that was at least 2 inches below the WC's back-wound location.
When I said that the coat and shirt holes overlapped and aligned with each other, you said this was “kooky.” Remember that? Then, after I quoted Frazier to you on this point, you back-peddled and claimed that you were only talking about my statement that the clothing bunching would have had to be millimeter-for-millimeter.
Every single researcher who has examined JFK’s coat and shirt at the National Archives has said that the two holes overlap and align almost perfectly, that they are only a fraction of faction of an inch from overlapping and aligning perfectly, just as Frazier explained to the WC.
But you are the one who was way off, not I. I was much closer to the fact of the matter than you were. You initially denied that the two holes even aligned and overlapped. When I quoted Frazier to prove otherwise, you then announced that, oh, you were only talking about how closely the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in correspondence with each other.
You are doing all of this ducking and dodging and evasion to avoid dealing with the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in almost perfect correspondence with each other, a fantastically far-fetched proposition.
Nope. Sorry. Go read Boswell’s ARRB testimony. He made it clear that they measured the defect and determined the amount of missing bone after they had reflected the scalp (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, pp. 63-65). Boswell pointed out that the 10 mm x 17 mm measurement was done on the scalp but that the 10 mm x 19 mm measurement was done “when the scalp is reflected” (p. 64).
Furthermore, when the ARRB asked Boswell if he still believed that the rear head entry wound was 15 mm x 6 mm and was 2.5 cm to the right and “slightly above” the EOP, he left no doubt that he did. Boswell spent considerable time talking about the EOP entry wound with the ARRB, and never once, not one single time, did he even hint that its size in the skull was any different than its size in the scalp, whereas he did specify this when it came to the large defect.
I notice that you long ago snipped and have continued to ignore Dr. Finck’s report to Gen. Blumberg, where Finck, who was a fanatic about precision of language, likewise said that the scalp wound corresponded to the skull wound:
Finck, who actually was a forensic pathologist and had some experience with gunshot autopsies, would not have said the skull wound corresponded to the scalp wound if they had differed in size or shape.
And are you ever going to explain what happened to the low/EOP fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw on the lateral skull x-rays at the autopsy? Under the fiercest and most skeptical questioning by the HSCA and the ARRB, they doggedly insisted that the only fragment trail they saw was the one they described in the autopsy report, even though no such trail now appears on the skull x-rays. Gee, where did it go? WC apologists have only two possible answers: (1) the autopsy doctors were so blitheringly incompetent that they “mistook” the EOP fragment trail for a fragment trail that was actually a whopping 4 inches higher in the lateral skull x-rays, or (2) they simply lied about the fragment trail and ignored the fragment trail now visible on the lateral skull x-rays.
LOL! Do you know what “anatomical position” means? Google it. This only makes your argument more ridiculous.
I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle. I have already showed you the HSCA FPP’s SBT diagram, which leans JFK far forward to make the “slightly upward” trajectory work. But Canning’s SBT trajectory diagram not only ignores this but has JFK sitting straight up and has the back wound above the throat wound and puts the exit point clearly below the throat! We both know you can see these things.[/size]
But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.
It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.
Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.
You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted. The problem, which you have again ducked, is that there is no way in the world that the distance differences would be so tiny if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged. The distances would be far, far greater in every aspect/angle (yaw, pitch, and roll angles).
We are still waiting for some WC apologist to do a reenactment where they use an Imperial Reflex camera, take three photos, and hand the camera back and forth between each exposure, and produce photos that show the same incredibly tiny distances between background objects. I have already quoted the HSCA PEP’s own parallax measurements on those amazingly tiny differences in two other replies.
I already answered this nonsense. Allow me to quote part of what I wrote the last time you posted these arguments:
The point, which you keep dancing around, is that the Backyard cluster is over 200% divergent from the Dallas Arrest cluster in both distance and shape. You keep dancing around this central fact. And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.
And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Oswaldby2.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) One of the control photos. Head detail sharp. | (http://grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/jfk_picture_search/lee_harvey_oswald/backyard_photo_03.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Backyard Photos. Head detail not as sharp. |
You must be kidding. The "mean distance"?! Do you know how to read a graph? Do you not see the numbers on each line of the graph? Look at the graph again and you should be able to discern these numbers:
Dallas Arrest: 0 shape distance, 0 size distance
Marine: 0.5 shape distance, 0.020/0.025 size distance
New Orleans: 1.6 shape distance, 0.06/0.07 size distance
Russia: 0.9 shape distance, 0.19 size distance
Backyard: 1.75/1.8 shape distance, 0.31/0.32 size distance
Now, the closest of the Oswald clusters to the Backyard cluster is the New Orleans cluster, but even it diverges by 9% in shape distance and by 250% in size distance from the Backyard cluster.
If the backyard figure's face Penrose measurements were reasonably similar to those of the face seen in the Dallas arrest photos, you would not have these huge variations. And the variations would be even greater if the measurements had included those of the chin, nose, and ear lobes.
Now, to post this cherry-picked nonsense, you either don't grasp the basics about the Penrose analysis or you are hoping that our readers here are so gullible and math challenged that they will ignore the plainly obvious huge divergences seen on the graph and will somehow instead be impressed with your three cherry-picked sets of measurements.
LOL! Right. . . . Yeah. . . . And it was just a whopping, cosmic, incredible coincidence that the only three measurements that were omitted from the Penrose analysis were those of the same three areas that critics and photographic experts have identified as problematic: the chin width, the nose length, and the lobe length! I'd be willing to bet good money that even the dumbest Southern "cracker" who looked at the backyard photos would have enough basic intelligence to see that Snow's excuse is laughable.
Do tell me why they could not have gotten these measurements from 133-A-DeM or from 133-A-Stovall or from 133-C. 133-C is an 8 x 10 print. 133-A-Stovall is a 5 x 8 print and has better resolution than 133-A or 133-B. Let's see you stammer out some ridiculous excuse for why the nose, chin, and ear lobes are not clear enough in those photos to get those measurements. You simply must be kidding.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pantagraph.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/fa/0fa761de-cad1-11de-a46f-001cc4c002e0/0fa761de-cad1-11de-a46f-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Oswaldby2.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Backyard Photos fall short of level of detail in the arrest photos. |
And, again, just imagine how much greater the divergence between the Dallas Arrest cluster and the Backyard cluster would have been if those measurements had been included.
Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.
JohnM
OMG, why the deception? The keystone theory has been thoroughly refuted and when I demonstrated the massive amount of parallax changes in the backyard photos you endorsed my evidence(see below), now you're back to square one and peddling your original BS?
Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.
What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here.
Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.
"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:
The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter
b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm
The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.
The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:
Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)
Here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:
133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11
Again, these are millimeters.
This is goofball posturing. You really should avoid such posturing when you simultaneously show yourself to be comically ignorant of the facts.
On what planet is 1.1 mm, the largest variation in the horizontal parallax measurements, a "massive" change? Are you kidding? Are you some high schooler using your parent's computer in the basement? 1.1 mm, just FYI, is markedly smaller than 1/16th of an inch, and that was the largest horizontal change! Do you know what a millimeter is?
In the vertical parallax measurements, the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). Do you know how tiny a change 0.15 mm is? 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. Do you know basic math well enough to understand just how incredibly tiny that difference is? This might help you out: 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference (0.15 mm/0.0059 inches) that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch.
If you just cannot grasp the basic math here, go ask your parents to explain to you why 0.15 mm is an extremely tiny, tiny, tiny difference.
I hate to be so harsh, but you get on here and spew all this rhetoric while at the same time you make it obvious for all to see that you are clueless about even the basic facts. Maybe on your planet a 1.1 mm horizontal change and a 0.15 mm vertical change are "massive changes," but not down here on Earth.
The only "nutty theory" here is your absurd theory that a top-view handheld camera with a lever instead of a button, and handed back and forth between exposures, could produce photos that contain differences between their background objects that are so tiny that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and that were found to range from only 0.1 mm to 1.1 mm.
Finally, regarding Jerry Organ's labored denial that the rear entry wound in the skull was 6.0 mm, I will just note that even the WC did not stoop to this level of denial and dishonesty. The WC admitted that the skull wound was 6.0 mm, since the autopsy report makes this clear to everyone except a tiny band of WC apologists, and the commission theorized that the skull hole "recoiled" to 6.0 mm after being 6.5 mm or larger when made:
"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by
the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)
And notice that the commission said that this recoil "shrinks" the hole. The past tense of "shrinks" is "shrunk." I mention this because Jerry Organ strongly protested my use of the verb "shrunk" in reference to the alleged recoil of the skull.
You really think the pickets in these three photographs should have spread apart by centimeters between exposes? That the photographer's feet shifted two-or-three feet laterally between poses?
And you don't mention how the changes are consistent with how each photo was taken.
- In all cases, more of the background is shown to the right and less to the left on CE 133-B as compared to CE 133-A. Since the shadow analysis indicated that CE 133-B was taken before CE 133-A, the parallax indicates that the camera was moved slightly to the left between these two exposures.
- Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures.
Between the first and second pickets from the left gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member, a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the background.
So now we'll be hearing that the "forgers" took all that into account.
The Commission was evidently referring to the head when they used the word "skull". Because their own footnote references Humes testimony about the scalp wound measurements.
Little Donald Trump won't let nothing go and has to have the largest font size in the room. The difference is that the Commission provided the context of elastic recoil (and for skin if we go by their footnote). Which means a temporary enlargement that settles naturally to a slightly-smaller size. Compare with your scoffing tweet:
"The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk."
Do you just not understand the basic science here? Do you not grasp the problem? Or are you just throwing mud into the air and hoping some of it will seem credible? You and Mytton either simply do not grasp the problem or you are pretending the problem does not exist and making arguments that have nothing to do with the problem.
All the ducking and dodging in the world will not explain how a top-view handheld camera that had a lever instead of a button, and that was supposedly passed back and forth between exposures, could have produced three photos with backgrounds so similar that the differences between the objects in the backgrounds are so small that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and were found to be so incredibly tiny as to range between 0.1 mm and 1.1 mm. You keep dancing around this point.
LOL! This is what happens when you quote stuff without understanding the science behind it (or when you are unwilling to address the problem). The whole point is that the camera would have moved far, far, far more than "slightly to the left" if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged.
The parallax measurements show that the camera barely moved to the left at all between those two exposures, so little, so slightly, in fact, that the largest variation was only 1.1 mm in one of the horizontal parallax measurements. Nope, not on this planet.
More comedy. Again, the point is that the camera should have moved far, far, far more than the parallax measurements indicate it did, assuming, of course, that the photos were taken as alleged.
The camera was moved so slightly downward that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. To grasp how tiny a change this is, consider that 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Not on this planet.
This is your same bumbling, bogus argument, only this time regarding the vertical movement. Yes, the camera was moved downward, and the downward movement was impossibly slight. The camera was moved downward so slightly that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. Not on this planet.
As I have suggested before, why don't you WC apologists pool your money and perform a simple, inexpensive reenactment with the same model Imperial Reflex camera, or with a reasonably similar camera, and prove that someone taking three photos with such a camera and handing it back and forth between exposures could take photos that would contain such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects?
LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. What "all that"? All you have done is repeat facts that prove the very point I've been making.
The forgers would not have needed to take "all that" into account because the "all that" was the result of using the same background and only slightly keystoning it to try to make it less obvious that they used the same background! The "all that" simply reinforces the fact that the parallax measurements prove that the camera moved impossibly tiny amounts between exposures. If you have an explanation for these impossibly small variations, let's see it.
Uh, no, the commission said "the skull," not "the scalp." I'm pretty sure they knew the difference. Yes, the footnote references Humes' testimony, in which, at one point, Humes said the same thing:
"So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area." (2 H 352)
What do you not understand about this plain English? Oh, that's right: You still won't admit that in medical terms "corresponding" means "match," "fit," "agree with." When you acknowledge this definition, Humes was plainly saying that when they reflected the scalp, they could see that the wound in the skull matched the wound in the scalp, which was 6 mm wide.
So, "apparently," the author of this section of the report chose to rely on the autopsy report and on Humes's statement quoted above, and not on Humes's attempt to create wiggle room about the size of the wound in the skull. It is revealing that you, instead, choose to ignore the autopsy report and to ignore Humes's 2 H 352 statement, and instead rely solely on his waffling attempt to create wiggle room for the size of the skull wound.
But that is exactly what the WC said--the report even used the verb "shrinks." Shall we read it yet again?:
"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)
So the WC said that when a bullet strikes skull bone, the supposed "elastic recoil" of the skull "SHRINKS" the hole after the bullet goes through it so that the hole is smaller than the diameter of the bullet.
You do realize that "shrunk" is the past tense of "shrink," right?
Why don't you look up the verb "to shrink" while you're looking up the verbs "infer" and "imply," because you seem to have a problem with those verbs too. Or, maybe find some question or statement in the WC records uttered by "Mr. SPECTOR" that supports your twisting of language because you don't like what the language says.
What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here.
Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.
"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:
The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter
b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm
The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.
The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:
You realize the HSCA were not talking about the parallax differences in terms of life-scale?
"such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects"
Yep. It appears you don't.
Yep. It appears you don't.
Note the ad-Homs liberally sprinkled on yet another MTG word salad.
Someone who uses the term "CTards" has no business whining about "ad-homs".
Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.
[img][/img]
[img width=123 height=123][/img]
Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.
Bill, thanks very much. I wonder why you can't just copy and in this reply box??
I meant why I can't just paste a picture into this posting.
[img][/img]
I meant why I can't just paste a picture into this posting.
The Forum limits uploaded photos to a generic or custom icon per member. That way all the Forum needs to back-up and pay for storage are text and a very small amount of pictures. Pictures (larger than icons) have really large file sizes. Most Forums do it this way, I believe.
Photos for posts must be to an image link that is nested inside these tags:Code: [Select][img][/img]
I believe the browser (not the Forum's software) reads the link and automatically loads the image in.
You can use use direct coding ("Toggle View") or click on the "Picture Frame" icon. It's up to the poster to maintain a library of images at a picture-hosting site (maybe OneDrive links work, but I don't know).
You can also "hot-link" an image you see already posted on another site, by right-clicking the image and choosing "Copy image location" (do not press "Copy image" as that is for copying all the image information and data for pasting into a digital photo editor program). Some sites discourage "hot-linking" and your image link from such sources might not display correctly on the Forum.
Images on the Forum have been known to disappear over time as the image-hosting site may go to a paying format or go out of business. An "hot-linked" image can disappear if the page it's linked to is removed or its address is changed.
Bill, thanks very much, I'm learning.
Since this thread is called “JFK’s Head Snap and the implausible jet effect…… I thought I would focus on that.
Dr Luis Alvarez, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1968, did an experiment with a watermelon. Please go to this site http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect.html and look at the pictures of the watermelon when hit by a frangible round. I know, a head is not a watermelon but they are similar, hard on the outside and soft on the inside. Click on the pictures to enlarge for better viewing. So what happened to the watermelon, the front of it exploded similar to JFK and it was thrown backwards in the direction of where the shot originated.
Now remember in the motion picture “JFK”, Kevin Costner kept repeating when explaining JFK’s head movement “back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left”.
Now if you consider Dr. Luis Alvarez's melon experiment the movement of the watermelon went directly back towards where the shot came from. So By following JFK’s head movement you can tell in which direction the shot came from, “back and to the left”. And who was back and to the left with gun that fires a frangible round, Hickey.
Bill, physics is physics, can't argue that.
Since this thread is called “JFK’s Head Snap and the implausible jet effect…… I thought I would focus on that.
Dr Luis Alvarez, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1968, did an experiment with a watermelon. Please go to this site http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect.html and look at the pictures of the watermelon when hit by a frangible round. I know, a head is not a watermelon but they are similar, hard on the outside and soft on the inside. Click on the pictures to enlarge for better viewing. So what happened to the watermelon, the front of it exploded similar to JFK and it was thrown backwards in the direction of where the shot originated.
Now remember in the motion picture “JFK”, Kevin Costner kept repeating when explaining JFK’s head movement “back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left”.
Now if you consider Dr. Luis Alvarez's melon experiment the movement of the watermelon went directly back towards where the shot came from. So By following JFK’s head movement you can tell in which direction the shot came from, “back and to the left”. And who was back and to the left with gun that fires a frangible round, Hickey.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/72/e4/mfOtYcR4_o.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) "Gelatin block tests published in the House Select Committee's final report. Compare relatively narrow wound channel of full-metal jacket 6.5mm Carcano round in block A to photo of .223 round test (illus. 26 above)." |
I didn’t see the “illus 26 above” in your posting, but I have seen the .223 round go through the gelatin block and similar things happen. I don’t know what sets off the explosive action but I do know it travels for some distance and then explodes.
It’s not so much that it is a “carcano” round, it’s that it is a metal jacked bullet designed to go through more than one soldier on the battle field. One time my brother and I were out shooting and we had an old army masser WWII vintage, not sure where it was from but it had metal jacked bullets in it. I fired at some sort of animal feed bin and the bullet went through the first 2X6 wood piece and when it went through the second wood rail, it went through it sideways, they were about 5 feet apart. So in the first piece of wood there was just a round hole in it and in the second one you could see the side profile of the bullet. No evidence of it coming apart.
I will look in McLarens book and see if there is a moment where McLaren or Donohue realize that they don’t have an acceptable representative experiment, no hard shell.
I haven’t seen anything about the 6.5 going through a skull but McLaren did do the watermelon test with both types of bullets. The frangible round, .223 acted exactly as in Dr Alvarez’s experiment, small entry hole and an explosion in the exit area. The 6.5 had a small entry hole and the exit hole was a little larger with some outward cracks around it. It was in “JFK – The Smoking Gun” documentary. Again a watermelon is not a human skull but it does give us a very good idea of what is happening.
I didn’t see the “illus 26 above” in your posting,
but I have seen the .223 round go through the gelatin block and similar things happen. I don’t know what sets off the explosive action but I do know it travels for some distance and then explodes.
It’s not so much that it is a “carcano” round, it’s that it is a metal jacked bullet designed to go through more than one soldier on the battle field. One time my brother and I were out shooting and we had an old army masser WWII vintage, not sure where it was from but it had metal jacked bullets in it. I fired at some sort of animal feed bin and the bullet went through the first 2X6 wood piece and when it went through the second wood rail, it went through it sideways, they were about 5 feet apart. So in the first piece of wood there was just a round hole in it and in the second one you could see the side profile of the bullet. No evidence of it coming apart.
I will look in McLarens book and see if there is a moment where McLaren or Donohue realize that they don’t have an acceptable representative experiment, no hard shell.
I haven’t seen anything about the 6.5 going through a skull but McLaren did do the watermelon test with both types of bullets. The frangible round, .223 acted exactly as in Dr Alvarez’s experiment, small entry hole and an explosion in the exit area. The 6.5 had a small entry hole and the exit hole was a little larger with some outward cracks around it. It was in “JFK – The Smoking Gun” documentary. Again a watermelon is not a human skull but it does give us a very good idea of what is happening.
Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.
Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.
Jerry, I will look for the “illus 26”.
Yes they can be considered “soft tissue” tests but because of the similarity of a watermelon to a human head you see similar results. The bullet travels about half way through the object and explodes. The bullet has it’s own momentum and was moving at 3,000 ft/sec so it keeps traveling until it explodes.
I haven’t studied the Connelly wounding but because he was hit by a “tumbling” bullet it had to have hit something previously to upset it. Because of this the single bullet theory makes sense. Several people have lined the bullets path by showing Connelly sitting in a lower jump seat and seated a little to the left of JFK.
Once you figure in a shot from the grassy knoll, whether the “single bullet theory” is correct or not, you have established two shooters. The big question is who paid them or told them to do it.
A compelling visual clue unexpectedly confronted me at the Archives as I viewed the color transparencies in stereo. In the upper left corner of F8 . . . I was surprised to see fat tissue (in the far distance), and even a nipple extending outward from the skin of the chest. (This area is not visible in the public images.) Rather strangely, until the ARRB, no one else had reported seeing such fatty tissue. However, the ARRB’s forensic pathologist, Robert H. Kirschner, also described this fat. Kirschner had thus corroborated my critical observation. These fat pads probably resulted from retracting the abdominal skin after the Y-incision. (Kirschner made the same point.) Seeing such fatty tissue in that location is only possible if F8 is a view from the back of the head. Once that is granted, a large occipital defect can readily be appreciated in F8. (Mantik, John F. Kennedy’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis, Kindle Edition, 2015, location 418, p. 31)
Jerry, I agree a melon rind would not cause a FMJ bullet to fragment nor a frangible round and I am not sure a FMJ round would break apart hitting a skull. The purpose of the watermelon test is to see the difference in the results between a FMJ and a frangible round. Aren’t the results of the frangible round on the watermelon and what happened to JFK similar?
A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.
I don’t know if Donahue and McLaren did any “hard tissues tests” nor do I know that they are done. Please read this interesting article on ballistic gel, it basically includes “hard tissue”. https://shootingthebull.net/blog/more-on-bullet-penetration-and-why-we-dont-use-bones-when-testing-ammo-in-gel/
Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.
A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.
Quote from: Mike Carney on Today at 04:19:20 PM
A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.
So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.
Oh, yeah, your story is that CE 399 supposedly transited JFK's neck, then transited Connally's chest while smashing 4 inches of rib bone in the process, then transited Connally's wrist and smashed one of the hardest bones in the body in the process, and then buried itself in Connally's thigh--yet not only did this magic bullet not fragment but it emerged with its lands and grooves intact.
However, your story also says that the one head-shot bullet that you will acknowledge shattered into dozens of fragments, depositing two fragments in the limo and leaving about 40 fragments in the head! Yeah, makes perfect sense.[/size]
You should know by now that this is false. We have already covered this issue. You are once again misrepresenting the totality of Humes's statements on the wound, and are ignoring what Finck said about the wound. As has been pointed out to you, even the WC did not stoop to the level of denying that the wound was measured to be 6.0 mm on the scalp and on the skull. That's what Humes said in the autopsy report. That's what he told the WC in one part of this testimony. And that's what Finck stated very clearly to General Blumberg. I am sorry that you don't like the fact that in medical lingo "corresponding" means matching, fitting, etc.
You pull this stunt over and over again. You make a claim; the claim is refuted; and then you post the claim again and do not even acknowledge the counter-arguments that have been presented to you about the claim. I guess you just assume that most people will only read the most recent posts in a thread or something and that therefore you can usually get away with repeating refuted claims and with not even acknowledging the counter-arguments to those claims.[/size]
Jerry,
“Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.”
If you think about it if a frangible round fragmented on impact and didn’t penetrate the skull all you would have is a flesh wound. No, with the speed and the mass of the frangible round, it will penetrate bone. If I could remember my college physics I could better explain it but the old brain doesn’t work like it used to.
“A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.”
As far as McLaren being misleading, think of the gelatin test. They specify that a bullet must penetrate the gel 12” (not body penetration, but gel penetration) this means that the bullet has enough energy to hit the vitals from any angle, and through any barrier on the body. It will have enough power to blast through a bone and reach the vitals underneath. I don’t think the Armed Forces would use a bullet that would not pass muster in a gelatin ballistics test.
“So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.”
Yes, I think the 6mm applies to the skull and not the tissue. The tissue is too pliable and one would have to use a ruler to measure a hole in tissue but for a hole In the skull they would use something like an inside taper gauge.
“The website talks about ballistic gel being a soft tissue simulant (true) but they're talking about straight-line bullet penetration range, not fragmentation or what happens when a bullet deflects.”
No, the ballistic gel is both hard and soft tissue equivalent. . See it all depends on how far the bullet penetrates the gel. If it penetrates the gel 12” then that is the equivalent of going through any amount of bone and soft tissue to get to vital organs.
Jerry
“I didn't claim it won't crack the skull, or bore through it. I'm assuming it would penetrate the skull bone, but, being frangible, it would leave behind at the impact site a considerable amount of its mass.”
What do we know about the hole, it appears to be a clean hole so the bullet did pass through the skull without any “explosion” at entry. So then the bullet travels some distance and explodes, how far we don’t know. We also know that the right of JFK’s head is blown out, shown in Zapruders film.
“But whatever passed through Kennedy brain didn't arrive there nose-on and intact.”
No, it exploded as frangible rounds do, we just don’t know where it explodes.
Moving at 3,000 ft/sec it could have traveled some distance. Of course it would have been slowed down by the impact but none the less, it was still traveling very fast.
“Great test, I suppose, if the working assumption is that a FMJ bullet will be intact and nose-on after passing through a bone. McLaren would love it; the AR-15 bullet would disintegrate anyway and the FMJ bullet would plow a straight path.”
Again, we know it will designate or explode at some point but we don’t know where.
You don’t need to be a PhD in physics to know that with every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Forward movement, what happens when you get hit in the back of the head with something, your immediate reaction is your head moves forward, nothing magical about that. Now let’s talk about the rearward movement
It seems that the only possible explanation for the head jerking backward is the “jet-effect” or the “neuromuscular spasm” caused by the 6.5mm bullet shot from a Carcano rifle 80 yards away, moving at 1800 ft/sec.
Now let’s imagine a 5.5mm bullet shot from an M16 roughly 15 ft away traveling at 3,000 ft/sec.
Now let’s talk about the backward jolt. Imagine a small explosive device, more powerful than a cherry bomb but not as powerful as a hand grenade, next to a person’s right forehead. Now imagine it is detonated, what happens, the head jerks away from the exploded device. No argument there I take it. Now imagine I can put that device inside the head say a couple inches away from the left forehead. Now that is detonated and what happens. It blows the forehead open and spews blood and brain matter out and the power of the explosion again pushes the head away from the explosion in a backward direction.
So my theory is that the frangible bullet reaches the area in JFK’s forehead and explodes, thus the backward movement.
Jerry you will notice when McLaren does the watermelon tests the FMJ goes though the melon and the exit hole is a little larger than the entry hole plus there is some fracturing on exit. The frangible round enters the melon leaving a small entry hole, travels some distance and explodes taking the whole front end of the melon apart. We see this time and again as in Alvarez’s experiment.
In defense of Dr Alvarez:
To explain a little about Dr Alvarez, I don’t know this to be a fact but coming from an engineering background I see it as this. Regarding the multiple different results of shooting various “fruits” and seeing the results and increasing the velocity of the bullets and finally getting the same results as we see happened to JFK. He kept trying and trying until something worked. It wasn’t that he was hiding the results of the failed attempts; in R&D we do a lot of that kind of thing, keep at it until you get it right. And as far as Vela Incident, the US and Israeli governments can cover up anything and in the process shred someone’s reputation. I know there are no facts to back this up, it’s just the way I see it from what I know and have experienced.
What I am trying to demonstrate as was Dr Alvarez is that a frangible round traveling at 3,000 ft/sec entering the back of JFK’s head gets ¾ of the way through his head and explodes. I don’t think Alvarez was hiding anything, I think he was just trying to demonstrate the effect. I have seen many other videos of others do the same experiment with the same results.
then the bullet struck Kennedy on a downward, 16-degree angle, banked up like a pool ball, and made a quick right turn to exit the skull near the right front—at a higher level than where it went in. (Bonar Menninger, Mortal Error, 1992, p. 47; see also pp. 43-46)
Jerry you will notice when McLaren does the watermelon tests the FMJ goes though the melon and the exit hole is a little larger than the entry hole plus there is some fracturing on exit. The frangible round enters the melon leaving a small entry hole, travels some distance and explodes taking the whole front end of the melon apart. We see this time and again as in Alvarez’s experiment.
In defense of Dr Alvarez:
To explain a little about Dr Alvarez, I don’t know this to be a fact but coming from an engineering background I see it as this. Regarding the multiple different results of shooting various “fruits” and seeing the results and increasing the velocity of the bullets and finally getting the same results as we see happened to JFK. He kept trying and trying until something worked. It wasn’t that he was hiding the results of the failed attempts; in R&D we do a lot of that kind of thing, keep at it until you get it right. And as far as Vela Incident, the US and Israeli governments can cover up anything and in the process shred someone’s reputation. I know there are no facts to back this up, it’s just the way I see it from what I know and have experienced.
What I am trying to demonstrate as was Dr Alvarez is that a frangible round traveling at 3,000 ft/sec entering the back of JFK’s head gets ¾ of the way through his head and explodes. I don’t think Alvarez was hiding anything, I think he was just trying to demonstrate the effect. I have seen many other videos of others do the same experiment with the same results.
Anything to do with a melon is a soft-tissue test. Now Dr. Alvarez termed his wrapped melon (two layers of one-inch Scotch filament tape) a "reasonable facsimile of a human head" but Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, critiqued Alvarez's study and claimed:
"the force required for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same
thickness of live human bone vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100
times greater, and 50 times greater even for dead human bone."
Hard to imagine a .223 round impacting something 100 times harder than a melon rind and still perform as if it were in a gelatin block or melon.
With regards to the McLaren melon tests, the 6.5mm in soft-tissue has a uniform and steady temporarily cavity and wouldn't begin to tumble, if at all, until well pass the length of the melon. A tumbling or disintegrated FMJ round (as from impacting skull bone) would have a different temporary cavity.
The .223 round tumbles almost immediately and maybe separates early, producing a greater temporary cavity in a shorter space. The Australian .223 study makes me wonder if the .223 round would have sufficient force to "explode" a wrapped melon. In any event, we're still taking about soft-tissue events which has limited relevance to a skull wound.
So the .223 round has a "tumbling" advantage over FMJs in soft-tissue. But in regards to a skull wound, the FMJ would likely tumble and disintegrate as well, depending on how it struck the skull bone.
The Alvarez tests had explosive results using soft-nosed 30.06 bullets striking melons but apparently only if the melons were wrapped (two layers of strong one-inch Scotch filament tape). Alvarez doesn't much say what happened to the melons that weren't wrapped. Dr. Lattimer, in 1975, repeated the Alvarez wrapped-melon test using 6.5mm FMJs, claiming to have produced similar recoil results.
So we're back to melons tests by Alvarez/Lattimer and McLaren being soft-tissue, possibly having some application in showing the effects of a temporary cavity in a soft tissue mass, like the brain. But to get to that soft-tissue in a living human first requires impact and penetration on skull bone, which in turn induces the factor of bullet tumbling and, mostly likely, disintegration at the entry site.
Unfortunate the Alvarez and McLaren results fall into the soft-tissue test category.
* The only credible, plausible explanation for the two fragments is that they are ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher suggested to firearms expert Howard Donahue, and just as Donahue brilliantly developed through later research. Five eyewitnesses said they saw a bullet strike the curb near the limousine early in the shooting (Don Thomas, Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, 2013, pp. 314-317). This bullet sent several fragments streaking toward the limousine, with at least two of them hitting JFK in the back of the head. They would have hit hard enough to hurt, to sting.
It is entirely plausible, if not probable, that JFK’s first visible reactions, starting in Z186, were in response to the impact of these fragments. This would explain a number of things and would strongly suggest that JFK’s very visible Z226-232 reaction was in response to the bullet that struck him in the back. Most conspiracy theorists now agree with Fisher and Donahue that the two back-of-head fragments must be ricochet fragments.
* The EOP entry site poses an unsolvable problem for the lone-gunman theory: There is no way that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the TSBD could have made this wound and the alleged exit wound on the right-front side of the head unless JFK had been leaning forward by about 60 degrees. But the Zapruder film shows him leaning forward by only about 11 degrees.
"the force required for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same
thickness of live human bone vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100
times greater, and 50 times greater even for dead human bone."
I am not arguing that the melon rind is as hard as a person’s skull. The watermelon test is to demonstrate what the different effects of the two kinds of bullets has on a head.
The FMJ basically passes right through with not a lot of collateral damage and no fragmenting.
The frangible round on the other hand does a tremendous amount of damage. The frangible round passes into the melon and at some point explodes forcing the innards of the melon forward and the rear section backwards. Just like JFK reacted.
“With regards to the McLaren melon tests, the 6.5mm in soft-tissue has a uniform and steady temporarily cavity and wouldn't begin to tumble, if at all, until well pass the length of the melon. A tumbling or disintegrated FMJ round (as from impacting skull bone) would have a different temporary cavity.”
A FMJ round does not disintegrate, the jacket holds it together.
“So we're back to melons tests by Alvarez/Lattimer and McLaren being soft-tissue, possibly having some application in showing the effects of a temporary cavity in a soft tissue mass, like the brain. But to get to that soft-tissue in a living human first requires impact and penetration on skull bone, which in turn induces the factor of bullet tumbling and, mostly likely, disintegration at the entry site.”
M16 rounds do not “disintegrate” on impact, please see the data below.
Please see the M16 penetration characteristics shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Ballistic gelatin @ 10 meters 14 in
Sandbags @ 100 meters 4 in
¾” pine boards @ 100 meters 8 boards
Steel helmet both sides at 300 m, one side to 500 m
14 ga steel @ 100 meters 2 layers
Kevlar 31 layers
And it won’t penetrate ¼” of bone?
I think 3.6 gr bullet traveling at 3,300 ft/sec will easily penetrate ¼” of bone. What was the gun of choice for mob hits, .22 cal. Now if a .22 hollow point will pass through the skull with a velocity of 1,100 ft/sec, a .223 at 3,300 ft/sec will certainly pass through it.
Tests by the Haags showed 6.5mm FMJs fired into asphalt almost instantly disintegrated into minute parts, which seems to put the "ricochet" theory to rest.
JFK doesn't react to being shot until Z226. He may have been shot a few frames before (while out of view) but didn't voluntary react until Z226.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-headshotslope.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Modified from HSCA drawing
When I was asked to participate in analysis of the physical evidence regarding the assassination of John Kennedy, I welcomed the opportunity to help set the record straight. I did not anticipate that study of the photographic record of itself would reveal major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings. Such has turned out to be the case. (Letter from Thomas Canning to Robert Blakey, 1/5/1978, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/canning-s-letter-to-blakey)
LOL! Well, that clinches it then!
One, the Haags are quacks when it comes to the JFK case. Q. U. A. C. K. S. I’m guessing you haven’t read any of the critiques of their junk science?
Two, the ammo that hit Kennedy in the head behaved like frangible ammo, not FMJ ammo. A frangible bullet striking the curb could have sent fragments streaking at high speeds in several directions.
Three, I am still waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence that says an FMJ bullet striking a skull at a downward angle would somehow deposit two mid-section fragments 1 cm below the entry point. None of the bullets in the WC’s tests did that. None of the bullets in the Failure Analysis tests did that. And no one has yet been able to find a single documented case where an FMJ bullet behaved in this manner. [/size]
All this back and forth crap is getting old. Check out this website where cops talk about .223 headshots.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5445-223-in-the-head
Basically it says that the .223 enters the head and rarely exits. Typically enters the head and travels a couple inches and explodes. Just like what happened to JFK, traveled a couple of inches and exploded.
You have made a very good case that the head-shot bullet behaved like a frangible bullet and not anything like an FMJ bullet. Many forensic and ballistics experts have noted this fact, as I document in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wound."
But, I can tell you that the likes of Organ and Elliott will never, ever, ever admit this fact, no matter how much evidence you show them and no matter how strained and silly their counter-arguments are exposed as being.
An interesting side note is that we now know that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors briefly discussed the fact that the bullet that struck the head did not behave like an FMJ bullet. This observation probably came from Finck, who had considerable experience with gunshot wounds.
And, you probably know from reading Mortal Error that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel members believed that the back-of-head fragment was a ricochet fragment. I spoke and corresponded with Donahue a couple of times a few years after his book came out, and I could tell right away that he would never lie about something like this. Everyone who knew Donahue could discern that he was a down-to-earth, straight-shooter type of person.
You have made a very good case that the head-shot bullet behaved like a frangible bullet and not anything like an FMJ bullet. Many forensic and ballistics experts have noted this fact, as I document in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wound."
An interesting side note is that we now know that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors briefly discussed the fact that the bullet that struck the head did not behave like an FMJ bullet. This observation probably came from Finck, who had considerable experience with gunshot wounds.
But, I can tell you that the likes of Organ and Elliott will never, ever, ever admit this fact, no matter how much evidence you show them and no matter how strained and silly their counter-arguments are exposed as being.
Joe
"Question:
Where is the ballistic expert who says different? And who cites his experiments that show that a WCC/MC bullet, striking bone, like a skull, at high speed, will not fragment?"
Read Griffith’s article, it’s full of experts claiming that a FMJ bullet is not likely to fragment and certainly not fragment like the fragments found in JFK’s head.
Sorry Joe,
I thought I included it. http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/forensic.htm
There are a number of experts in the article.
No they are not discussing the Western Cartridge Company rounds specifically, they are discussing FMJ bullets in which I am sure some were WCC cartridges. There are specifications for a 6.5mm FMJ and I am sure they would all perform similarly. And the other point is the fragmentation; even if a FMJ came apart you would not have the “spray” of tiny fragments, you would have large fragments.
What point are you trying to prove, that Oswald was the lone gunman? That has gone by the wayside.
“No they are not discussing the Western Cartridge Company rounds specifically, . . .”. End of ballgame.
So I think I will sum up my stand and then move onto a new topic like “Who shot JFK and why?”
There were several shooters, 6th floor of the TSBD, the grassy knoll, accidental shot from Hickey, possibly from the Dal Tex building, and possibly another from a sewer. The sewer I don’t buy it but it’s out there.
The first shot hit’s the pavement and ricocheted fragments hit JFK in the back of the head and he says “I’m hit”. Next shot from behind hit’s JFK in the back and exits his throat and possibly hits Connolly in the back and out his chest, through his wrist and into his leg. Or Connolly got hit by a third bullet possibly from the Dal Tex building. His movements after JFK got hit, and his testimony states he turned to his right to see if he could see JKF when he was holding his throat, didn’t and started to turn to his left and then he said he was hit. The next shot or shots were frangible rounds, one from the back and one from the front. One fired by Hickey and the other by the shooter on the grassy knoll. So now the lone shooter theory is out the window. Way too many witnesses said a shot came from the grassy knoll; gunshot sound and some smoke. And you have all the Hickey witnesses saying he was holding a gun and some thought he had fired it. Throw in the gun smoke smelled by so many witnesses in the motorcade, the smokes alignment with the motorcade, and the wind also being in alignment with the motorcade say’s that a gun was fired in the motorcade.
The frangible round from the back explains JFK’s head movement as witnessed by all the melon tests, (btw I weighed a large round watermelon the other day and it weighed 14 lbs.) The bullet passes through the head some distance and then explodes. It looks like it traveled 2-3 inches and then exploded blowing JFK’s brain mater forward and his head back like in the watermelon tests.
That's my story and I am sticking to it...........
Does anyone know if there is a thread “Who shot JFK and why?”
I hate to be blunt, but that is just an idiotic argument. It shows you have no clue what you're talking about. You are just making up nonsense on the fly.
FYI, even today, most FMJ bullets are copper-jacketed. As I told you in my thread on the evidence that JFK's head was hit by frangible ammo, just go to any major website that sells ammo, and you'll see that most FMJ bullets are copper-jacketed.
And let me remind you again, since you keep ignoring this point, that not one of the WCC/MC FMJ bullets fired into skulls in Olivier's WC ballistics tests fragmented into dozens of fragments inside and/or outside the skull, much less magically deposited two fragments on the outer table of the skull. Not a single one of them did this. Not one.
Let me also remind you that you claim that WCC/MC FMJ bullet CE 399 penetrated seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone, and yet not only did not fragment but, incredibly, emerged with its lands and grooves intact and with all but 3-4 grains of its substance.
I know you don't know anything about ammo or ballistics, but the fact that CE 399's lands and grooves are intact is incredible. This suggests it was fired into cloth, or some other soft material, and then retrieved.
No FMJ bullet down here on Earth is going to smash 4 inches of rib and shatter a radius bone and still have its lands and grooves intact. But that's your fairy tale. Yet, then you turn around and claim that, "Oh, yeah, a WCC/MC FMJ bullet hit Kennedy in the head, shattered into over 40 fragments, left two fragments on the outer table of the skull, and even ejected its nose and tail into the limousine!"
Even on something as well established as the fact that FMJ ammo usually does not fragment in skull shots and that on those few occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment in skull shots, they only break into a few pieces and never into dozens of tiny fragments--even on this well-established fact you can't bring yourself to be objective and just acknowledge the fact.
And let me remind you again, since you keep ignoring this point, that not one of the WCC/MC FMJ bullets fired into skulls in Olivier's WC ballistics tests fragmented into dozens of fragments inside and/or outside the skull, much less magically deposited two fragments on the outer table of the skull. Not a single one of them did this. Not one.
"This is one of many "non-magic" "simplified" counters to the Single-Bullet Theory. LOL."
What so you mean by "simplified counter" to the single-bullet theory?
1. You have many witnesses claiming a bullet was fired from the grassy knoll. Most likely the throat shot.
2. You have a shooter on the sixth floor TSBD.
3. Evidence in JFK's skull that he was hit with a frangible round.
4. Evidence that Hickey fired the fatal shot accidentally.
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/bronson_254_083013.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) From Dale Myers site. Arrow points to agent in back seat. IMO, Hickey is probably the more elevated of the two agents. | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/firstshot/willis-bretzner-labelled.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) |
(https://images2.imgbox.com/51/ba/5CbPyY7I_o.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) From the Pat Speer site. | (https://images2.imgbox.com/6e/3c/hIIVCKtq_o.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) From the Pat Speer site. |
We don't need a single bullet theory, the only reason it exists is because they wanted to blame it all on Oswald. That's the only way they could pin it all on one person, case closed.
It just dawned that JFK got hit at least 4 times; fragments to the back of the head from the ricochet, once in the back, once in the throat, and once more in the head.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/51/ba/5CbPyY7I_o.jpg)
Gerry,
If you watch all the simulated "melon" shooting you see in most instances that the melon explodes out the front, the the back part of the melon goes backwards.
Imagine a bullet that explodes when striking something. It is moving so fast, 3,300 ft/sec, it enters the head, travels some distance and then explodes. Let's say it travels 6 inches and explodes, remember, 3,300 ft/sec, it doesn't take much for it to travel the 6 inches. Now where is the bullet when it explodes? It's just below JFK's front right forehead and it explodes. It blows in all directions; blowing that area of JFK's skull out and away and also blows backwards thus pushing JFK's head back and to the left.
"The bones broke at the front of the head. Wouldn't the breaking of these bones pull the head forward?"
No, because the blast is forward coming out of his forehead, like a rocket taking off. Blast goes one way the rocket goes in the opposite direction. Another example: It’s kind of like a rifle recoiling; you have this explosion when the bullet is fired, it goes forward and you get the kick backwards.