JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 09, 2026, 03:19:07 PM
-
Howard Donahue was a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert. He was also a WWII veteran and a world-class rifleman. He was one of the 12 riflemen invited to fire in the 1967 CBS rifle test, and he was the only one who scored three hits in under 6 seconds (he did so on his third attempt). Donahue became interested in the JFK case and produced important research on the JFK shooting. Donahue's research is the subject of Bonar Menninger's 1992 book Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK. Donahue passed away in December 1999.
Donahue realized early on that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have produced the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays. He also realized that the trajectory of the head damage was impossible to line up with the sixth-floor window. He eventually concluded that Secret Service agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, accidentally fired a shot with his AR-15 rifle and that this shot hit JFK in the back of the head. Donahue believed that Oswald fired shots from the sixth-floor window but that Oswald did not fire any shots that hit JFK's head.
Few people know that Donahue met with HSCA staffers during the committee's investigation and discussed the problems with the idea that Oswald fired the ammo that hit JFK's head. Donahue was also in contact with four members of the HSCA's medical panel (FPP) during the investigation. Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the FPP, simply ignored Donahue's evidence.
I knew Howard Donahue. He was a truly decent person, sincere and honest. He and I had several friendly dialogues about the JFK case. He even gave me one of his WCC shells as a souvenir. Howard was a patriot who loved America. He simply could not bring himself to believe that his government would cover up an assassination conspiracy. When I explained to him Dr. David Mantik's research based on optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays, Howard literally could not bring himself to read it; he believed there just had to be some other explanation.
Here is a summary of Donahue's research:
-- Donahue realized that the ammo that hit Kennedy's head behaved like high-velocity, frangible ammo, whereas Oswald is said to have used medium-velocity, non-frangible ammo, i.e., full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) ammo. The JFK autopsy x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, along with fragments on the outer table of the skull in the back of the head. Donahue knew that an FMJ bullet never would have fragmented in this manner.
Donahue noted that the wound ballistics test cited by the HSCA argued against the idea that FMJ ammo caused all of Kennedy's head wounds. In the tests, three kinds of bullets were fired through blocks of ballistics gelatin: a 6.5 mm FMJ missile (Oswald's alleged ammo), a .30 caliber FMJ bullet. and a .223 M-16/AR-15 frangible bullet. Side-view photos showed that the 6.5 mm and .30 caliber FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, wounds in no way consistent with the damage done to JFK's brain. The M-16/AR-15 bullet, however, gouged a huge portion from the gelatin and left numerous tiny fragments near the front of the block, closely resembling the damage seen in the autopsy skull x-rays. Baden saw to it that the FPP's report ignored this revealing test.
-- Donahue realized that the 6.5 mm object seen on the autopsy skull x-rays on the outer table of Kennedy's skull in the back of the head could not have come from the kind of ammunition that Oswald allegedly used. Forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet has ever deposited a sizable fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entering the skull. Such behavior by FMJ bullets is simply unheard of.
Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object had to be a ricochet fragment. Donahue came to agree with this conclusion, deducing that the bullet that five witnesses saw strike the pavement early in the shooting sent fragments streaking toward the back of JFK's head, and that one of them was the 6.5 mm object.
Donahue realized that Dr. McDonnel's discovery of an additional fragment on the back of the head near the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays was further ironclad proof that the bullet could not have been an FMJ missile and that the McDonnel fragment, like the 6.5 mm object, was a ricochet fragment from the pavement bullet. (Donahue could not bring himself to consider Dr. Mantik's discovery that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is a ghosted image that was placed over a genuine 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment and a few smaller fragments.)
Donahue met with Dr. Alfred Olivier, who assisted with the WC's wound ballistics tests. Olivier told Donahue that the FMJ bullets in their tests did not break into dozens of tiny pieces. BTW, the x-rays of the skulls from the WC's tests show minimal fragmentation, and the fragmentation they show is markedly different from the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays (a fact first noted in 1976 by researcher and attorney Howard Roffman).
Donahue interviewed several forensic pathologists, and none of them had ever heard of an FMJ bullet shearing off a large fragment at the entry point and then shattering into dozens of fragments inside the skull. Donahue noted that one of the leading forensic experts in the world, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, observed that FMJ bullets will never behave in this manner and that skull x-rays that show numerous small fragments rule out FMJ ammo.
-- Donahue discovered that the jacket of one of the fragments that were reportedly recovered from the limousine is peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat. One edge of this folded section literally forms a razor edge. Donahue realized that it was extremely unlikely that such a sharp edge could have been fashioned as the bullet traveled through the skull and cranial tissue, but that it was entirely possible that this sharp edge was caused by striking pavement.
-- Donahue discovered that there are no traces of human tissue on the fragments that were allegedly found in JFK's limousine, yet the WC said these fragments came from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head. If these fragments had in fact passed through JFK's skull, they would have traces of brain tissue, blood, and fluid on them. Donahue examined the fragments at the National Archives using a 30-power jeweler's loupe. He found no traces of blood or tissue on them, not even in their grooves. Donahue correctly saw this as further evidence that those fragments were from the pavement bullet.
-- Donahue realized that CE 543, the dented shell allegedly left behind by the sixth-floor shooter, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. A number of other firearms experts have said the same thing, and two ballistics tests with FMJ bullets failed to produce a single shell as dented as CE 543.
-- Donahue found that the official trajectories given for the alleged rear entrance wound on JFK's head are incompatible with a shot from the sixth-floor window. Donahue said this applied to both the EOP entry site and the cowlick entry site.
-- Donahue noted that the reported width of the rear entrance wound in the head, 6.0 mm, is incompatible with the diameter of a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet. (Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, said he measured the rear entrance wound on the head and that it was 6 mm wide, which means it could not have been caused by a 6.5 mm missile.)
-- Donahue recognized that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the alleged sniper's nest. (Even the HSCA's trajectory expert tacitly admitted this seemed to be the case.)
-- Donahue noted that a number of witnesses said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, nearly simultaneously, too quickly to have been fired from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. (The HSCA's acoustical evidence confirms this fact: even excluding the 104.32 gunshot impulse, the shots occurred on the recording at intervals of 1.7 seconds, 4.8 seconds, and 0.7 seconds, when the timing is adjusted for tape speed. If we include the 104.32 gunshot impulse, we get an additional interval of 1.1 seconds. An expert rifleman may have been able to fire the alleged murder weapon in 1.7 seconds, but no one could have fired it in 0.7 seconds or 1.1 seconds.)
-- Donahue concluded that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound much earlier than Z225. Numerous experts, including the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel, have reached the same conclusion. (See, for example, Don Olson and Ralph Turner's article “Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in October 1971. Olson was a professor of physics at the University of California, while Turner was a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. They determined that JFK begins to react by no later than Z194.)
-- Unlike other WC apologists, Donahue took seriously the numerous witnesses who said they smelled gun powder on the grassy knoll or on the part of Elm Street that runs by the knoll. He noted that some of those witnesses were combat veterans and/or police officers who knew what gun powder smelled like, and that gun powder has a pungent and unique odor. He concluded that Hickey's shot produced the gun powder that numerous witnesses smelled.
Donahue's theory that Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head has been refuted, but the theory is based on a considerable amount of solid forensic and ballistics evidence and a valid rejection of the WC and the HSCA's conflicting trajectory analyses for the rear head shot. Donahue could not bring himself to posit a grassy knoll gunman or more than one head shot, so he tried to find another source of gunfire that was behind JFK. Although his mortal error theory has been refuted, he produced a great deal of valuable research on the assassination.
-
Howard Donahue was a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert. He was also a WWII veteran and a world-class rifleman.
He was also an idiot. His theory that Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the back of the head is one of the most ludicrous ever presented. It's right up there with the one that says Greer shot JFK from the driver's seat of the limo.
He was one of the 12 riflemen invited to fire in the 1967 CBS rifle test, and he was the only one who scored three hits in under 6 seconds (he did so on his third attempt).
A completely pointless exercise because Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots.
Donahue became interested in the JFK case and produced important research on the JFK shooting. Donahue's research is the subject of Bonar Menninger's 1992 book Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK. Donahue passed away in December 1999.
Donahue realized early on that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have produced the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays. He also realized that the trajectory of the head damage was impossible to line up with the sixth-floor window. He eventually concluded that Secret Service agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, accidentally fired a shot with his AR-15 rifle and that this shot hit JFK in the back of the head. Donahue believed that Oswald fired shots from the sixth-floor window but that Oswald did not fire any shots that hit JFK's head.
Prima facia evidence of my earlier statement that Donahue was an idiot. The Carcano bullet that Oswald fired into the back of JFK's head did fragment as evidenced by the fact the Secret Service found the fragmented bulled in the limo the night of the assassination. If not JFK's skull, what did Donahue think caused that bullet to frament?
Few people know that Donahue met with HSCA staffers during the committee's investigation and discussed the problems with the idea that Oswald fired the ammo that hit JFK's head. Donahue was also in contact with four members of the HSCA's medical panel (FPP) during the investigation. Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the FPP, simply ignored Donahue's evidence.
Kudos to Baden for that.
I knew Howard Donahue. He was a truly decent person, sincere and honest.
Sincere, honest and stupid.
He and I had several friendly dialogues about the JFK case. He even gave me one of his WCC shells as a souvenir. Howard was a patriot who loved America. He simply could not bring himself to believe that his government would cover up an assassination conspiracy. When I explained to him Dr. David Mantik's research based on optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays, Howard literally could not bring himself to read it; he believed there just had to be some other explanation.
Yes there was. Oswald shot JFK all by himself.
Here is a summary of Donahue's research:
-- Donahue realized that the ammo that hit Kennedy's head behaved like high-velocity, frangible ammo, whereas Oswald is said to have used medium-velocity, non-frangible ammo, i.e., full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) ammo. The JFK autopsy x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, along with fragments on the outer table of the skull in the back of the head. Donahue knew that an FMJ bullet never would have fragmented in this manner.
Yet it did as evidenced by the fragmented 6.5mm Carcano bullet found in the limo with two of the fragments positively matched to Oswald's rifle. How did Donahue explain that away?
Donahue noted that the wound ballistics test cited by the HSCA argued against the idea that FMJ ammo caused all of Kennedy's head wounds. In the tests, three kinds of bullets were fired through blocks of ballistics gelatin: a 6.5 mm FMJ missile (Oswald's alleged ammo), a .30 caliber FMJ bullet. and a .223 M-16/AR-15 frangible bullet. Side-view photos showed that the 6.5 mm and .30 caliber FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, wounds in no way consistent with the damage done to JFK's brain. The M-16/AR-15 bullet, however, gouged a huge portion from the gelatin and left numerous tiny fragments near the front of the block, closely resembling the damage seen in the autopsy skull x-rays. Baden saw to it that the FPP's report ignored this revealing test.
Ballistic gelatin simulates what a bullet will do when passing through soft human flesh. It doesn't come close to mimicking what a bullet will do when it strikes a human skull.
-- Donahue realized that the 6.5 mm object seen on the autopsy skull x-rays on the outer table of Kennedy's skull in the back of the head could not have come from the kind of ammunition that Oswald allegedly used. Forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet has ever deposited a sizable fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entering the skull. Such behavior by FMJ bullets is simply unheard of.
Do you think homicides committed by firing a 6.5mm Carcano bullet into a human skull is a common occurrence? Do we have a large sample size of such homicides? Or are we limited to just one?
Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object had to be a ricochet fragment. Donahue came to agree with this conclusion, deducing that the bullet that five witnesses saw strike the pavement early in the shooting sent fragments streaking toward the back of JFK's head, and that one of them was the 6.5 mm object.
Are we supposed to believe JFK was hit in the back of the head by a ricochet from the first shot and he never reacted to it?
Donahue realized that Dr. McDonnel's discovery of an additional fragment on the back of the head near the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays was further ironclad proof that the bullet could not have been an FMJ missile and that the McDonnel fragment, like the 6.5 mm object, was a ricochet fragment from the pavement bullet. (Donahue could not bring himself to consider Dr. Mantik's discovery that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is a ghosted image that was placed over a genuine 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment and a few smaller fragments.)
See above.
Donahue met with Dr. Alfred Olivier, who assisted with the WC's wound ballistics tests. Olivier told Donahue that the FMJ bullets in their tests did not break into dozens of tiny pieces. BTW, the x-rays of the skulls from the WC's tests show minimal fragmentation, and the fragmentation they show is markedly different from the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays (a fact first noted in 1976 by attorney Howard Roffman).
Were any of those test bullets fired into a human skull?
Donahue interviewed several forensic pathologists, and none of them had ever heard of an FMJ bullet shearing off a large fragment at the entry point and then shattering into dozens of fragments inside the skull. Donahue noted that one of the leading forensic experts in the world, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, observed that FMJ bullets will never behave in this manner and that skull x-rays that show numerous small fragments rule out FMJ ammo.
I would be interested in seeing an exact quote from Di Maio about that, not your interpretation of what he said.
-- Donahue discovered that the jacket of one of the fragments that were reportedly recovered from the limousine is peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat. One edge of this folded section literally forms a razor edge. Donahue realized that it was extremely unlikely that such a sharp edge could have been fashioned as the bullet traveled through the skull and cranial tissue, but that it was entirely possible that this sharp edge was caused by striking pavement.
On what does he base this opinion?
-- Donahue realized that CE 543, the dented shell allegedly left behind by the sixth-floor shooter, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. A number of other firearms experts have said the same thing, and two ballistics tests with FMJ bullets failed to produce a single shell as dented as CE 543.
Donahue realized a lot of things that are just FUBAR.
-- Donahue found that the official trajectories given for the alleged rear entrance wound on JFK's head are incompatible with a shot from the sixth-floor window. Donahue said this applied to both the EOP entry site and the cowlick entry site.
Dale Meyers' work says otherwise.
-- Donahue noted that the reported width of the rear entrance wound in the head, 6.0 mm, is incompatible with the diameter of a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet. (Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, said he measured the rear entrance wound on the head and that it was 6 mm wide, which means it could not have been caused by a 6.5 mm missile.)
Humes was not an experienced forensic medical examiner. The prosectors made numerous mistakes during the autopsy. A measurement error a half a millimeter is very plausible.
-- Donahue recognized that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the alleged sniper's nest. (Even the HSCA's trajectory expert tacitly admitted this seemed to be the case.)
Did Donahue think that when a bullet fragments, all of the fragments exit the body on the same vector at the bullet did when it entered the skull?
-- Donahue noted that a number of witnesses said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, nearly simultaneously, too quickly to have been fired from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. (The HSCA's acoustical evidence confirms this fact: even excluding the 104.32 gunshot impulse, the shots occurred on the recording at intervals of 1.7 seconds, 4.8 seconds, and 0.7 seconds, when the timing is adjusted for tape speed. If we include the 104.32 gunshot impulse, we get an additional interval of 1.1 seconds. An expert rifleman may have been able to fire the alleged murder weapon in 1.7 seconds, but no one could have fired it in 0.7 seconds or 1.1 seconds.)
Oh, goody. Another example of someone said something so it must be true.
-- Donahue concluded that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound much earlier than Z225.
More evidence that Donahue was an idiot.
Numerous experts, including the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel, have reached the same conclusion. (See, for example, Don Olson and Ralph Turner's article “Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in October 1971. Olson was a professor of physics at the University of California, while Turner was a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. They determined that JFK begins to react by no later than Z194.)
Just what form does this reaction take. All I see is JFK starting to lower his right hand after waving to the spectators on Elm St. Is this the normal reaction of someone who has just been shot?
-- Donahue discovered that there are no traces of human tissue on the fragments that were allegedly found in JFK's limousine, yet the WC said these fragments came from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head. If these fragments had in fact passed through JFK's skull, they would have traces of brain tissue, blood, and fluid on them. Donahue examined the fragments at the National Archives using a 30-power jeweler's loupe. He found no traces of blood or tissue on them, not even in their grooves.
Bullets are generally cleaned prior to testing for ballistic matching. Any debris on the bullet could obscure the markings that are used to match a bullet recovered from a crime scene to a test bullet.
-- Unlike other WC apologists, Donahue took seriously the numerous witnesses who said they smelled gun powder on the grassy knoll or on the part of Elm Street that runs by the knoll. He noted that some of those witnesses were combat veterans and/or police officers who knew what gun powder smelled like, and that gun powder has a pungent and unique odor. He concluded that Hickey's shot produced the gun powder that numerous witnesses smelled.
The smell of gun residue is not limited to the location of its discharge.
Donahue's theory that Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head has been refuted, but the theory is based on a considerable amount of solid forensic and ballistics evidence and a valid rejection of the WC and the HSCA's conflicting trajectory analyses for the rear head shot. Donahue could not bring himself to posit a grassy knoll gunman or more than one head shot, so he tried to find another source of gunfire that was behind JFK. Although his mortal error theory has been refuted, he produced a great deal of valuable research on the assassination.
Donahue's theory is based on FUBAR analysis.
-
He was also an idiot. His theory that Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the back of the head is one of the most ludicrous ever presented. It's right up there with the one that says Greer shot JFK from the driver's seat of the limo.
A completely pointless exercise because Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots.
Prima facia evidence of my earlier statement that Donahue was an idiot. The Carcano bullet that Oswald fired into the back of JFK's head did fragment as evidenced by the fact the Secret Service found the fragmented bulled in the limo the night of the assassination. If not JFK's skull, what did Donahue think caused that bullet to frament?
Kudos to Baden for that.
Sincere, honest and stupid.
Yes there was. Oswald shot JFK all by himself.
Yet it did as evidenced by the fragmented 6.5mm Carcano bullet found in the limo with two of the fragments positively matched to Oswald's rifle. How did Donahue explain that away?
Ballistic gelatin simulates what a bullet will do when passing through soft human flesh. It doesn't come close to mimicking what a bullet will do when it strikes a human skull.
Do you think homicides committed by firing a 6.5mm Carcano bullet into a human skull is a common occurrence? Do we have a large sample size of such homicides? Or are we limited to just one?
Are we supposed to believe JFK was hit in the back of the head by a ricochet from the first shot and he never reacted to it?
See above.
Were any of those test bullets fired into a human skull?
I would be interested in seeing an exact quote from Di Maio about that, not your interpretation of what he said.
On what does he base this opinion?
Donahue realized a lot of things that are just FUBAR.
Dale Meyers' work says otherwise.
Humes was not an experienced forensic medical examiner. The prosectors made numerous mistakes during the autopsy. A measurement error a half a millimeter is very plausible.
Did Donahue think that when a bullet fragments, all of the fragments exit the body on the same vector at the bullet did when it entered the skull?
Oh, goody. Another example of someone said something so it must be true.
More evidence that Donahue was an idiot.
Just what form does this reaction take. All I see is JFK starting to lower his right hand after waving to the spectators on Elm St. Is this the normal reaction of someone who has just been shot?
Bullets are generally cleaned prior to testing for ballistic matching. Any debris on the bullet could obscure the markings that are used to match a bullet recovered from a crime scene to a test bullet.
The smell of gun residue is not limited to the location of its discharge.
Donahue's theory is based on FUBAR analysis.
The level of ignorance and bias displayed in your comments is further proof that you have no business discussing the JFK assassination in a public forum. You don't even have a minimal understanding of the forensic and wound ballistics evidence in the case, nor do you seem to know anything about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates. If you did, you would know better than to cite the fraudulent trajectory analyses of Dale Myers. It is also clear that you've read very little if any of the research of responsible scholars who reject the lone-gunman scenario.
I already quoted what DiMaio said on FMJ ammo vs. frangible ammo in a post to which you replied just last week, in my "Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos" thread. I'm guessing you missed this because you only skimmed through my post. It says volumes about the shallow level of your knowledge that you don't already know what DiMaio said on this issue.
You contend it's "very plausible" that Humes mismeasured the entry wound by 0.5 mm, assuming the wound was 6.5 mm instead of 6.0 mm. This is hardly "very plausible" when we're talking about a wound measured with a ruler or a caliper. A 0.5 mm measuring error of a wound less than 7 mm wide would be a rather pronounced error even for a first-year pathology student.
But you guys, since most of you go with the cowlick entry site, must not only assume that Humes mismeasured the entry wound but that he, Boswell, and Finck made the mind-boggling blunder of mislocating the wound by a staggering 10 cm, that they somehow, someway mistook a wound above the lambdoid suture for a wound 10 cm lower, 1 cm above the EOP, when they had the EOP and the lambda as fixed reference points, not to mention the hairline.
You guys must also assume that Humes, Boswell, and Finck somehow "missed" the glaringly obvious high fragment trail on the skull x-rays, or, equally mind boggling, that they mistook it for a fragment trail that was 2 inches lower, that started near different fixed reference points, and that had the opposite trajectory (low-to-high vs. high-to-low). Why must you assume this? Because the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and because they said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report.
The woeful level of your knowledge shines through in your silly comment that the CBS rifle test was "a completely pointless exercise because Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots." As many, many scholars have pointed out, even if one assumes that the alleged lone gunman started firing before the limo passed under the oak tree, he still would have to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo cleared the oak tree--unless, of course, one wants to argue that the first hit on JFK happened before Z166, which no WC apologist claims. This is basic JFK Case 101 stuff, but you don't even have a handle on this foundational material. (BTW, in the WC's rifle test, which involved three Master-rated riflemen using the alleged murder weapon itself, their second and third shots missed nearly every time.)
It is comical that you would cite the limo bullet fragments as evidence that FMJ bullets shatter into dozens of fragments when they strike skulls. This is a hilarious gaffe. I notice you didn't explain how a bullet fragment that supposedly transited a human skull could end up with a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. Not a single bullet fragment in any of the JFK wound ballistics tests emerged with such deformation--not one.
-
The level of ignorance and bias displayed in your comments is further proof that you have no business discussing the JFK assassination in a public forum.
Oh, the irony.
You don't even have a minimal understanding of the forensic and wound ballistics evidence in the case, nor do you seem to know anything about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates.
Neither of us is an expert in these areas and one of us actually realizes that.
If you did, you would know better than to cite the fraudulent trajectory analyses of Dale Myers.
Tell us what is fraudulent about it. If you can't, we can just dismiss your declarations as so much bluster.
It is also clear that you've read very little if any of the research of responsible scholars who reject the lone-gunman scenario.
Define "responsible scholar". Do you get a certificate of some kind when you become one?
I already quoted what DiMaio said on FMJ ammo vs. frangible ammo in a post to which you replied just last week, in my "Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos" thread. I'm guessing you missed this because you only skimmed through my post. It says volumes about the shallow level of your knowledge that you don't already know what DiMaio said on this issue.
I know Di Maio is an LN.
You contend it's "very plausible" that Humes mismeasured the entry wound by 0.5 mm, assuming the wound was 6.5 mm instead of 6.0 mm. This is hardly "very plausible" when we're talking about a wound measured with a ruler or a caliper. A 0.5 mm measuring error of a wound less than 7 mm wide would be a rather pronounced error even for a first-year pathology student.
So after decades of telling us how incompetent the autopsy team was, you now cite one of its conclusions to bolster your argument.
But you guys, since most of you go with the cowlick entry site, must not only assume that Humes mismeasured the entry wound but that he, Boswell, and Finck made the mind-boggling blunder of mislocating the wound by a staggering 10 cm, that they somehow, someway mistook a wound above the lambdoid suture for a wound 10 cm lower, 1 cm above the EOP, when they had the EOP and the lambda as fixed reference points, not to mention the hairline.
As I explained to you already, once Oswald's bullet went through JFK's head, it became a jumbled mass of bone fragments held loosely together by a lacerated scalp. One of Wecht's criticisms of the autopsy was that they failed to take measurements from standard points of reference for a medico-legal autopsy which this team was performing for the first time.
You guys must also assume that Humes, Boswell, and Finck somehow "missed" the glaringly obvious high fragment trail on the skull x-rays, or, equally mind boggling, that they mistook it for a fragment trail that was 2 inches lower, that started near different fixed reference points, and that had the opposite trajectory (low-to-high vs. high-to-low). Why must you assume this? Because the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and because they said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report.
Thank you for your assessment Dr. Griffith. Now can you cite any competent forensic medical examiners to support your position.
The woeful level of your knowledge shines through in your silly comment that the CBS rifle test was "a completely pointless exercise because Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots." As many, many scholars have pointed out, even if one assumes that the alleged lone gunman started firing before the limo passed under the oak tree, he still would have to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo cleared the oak tree--unless, of course, one wants to argue that the first hit on JFK happened before Z166, which no WC apologist claims. This is basic JFK Case 101 stuff, but you don't even have a handle on this foundational material. (BTW, in the WC's rifle test, which involved three Master-rated riflemen using the alleged murder weapon itself, their second and third shots missed nearly every time.)
A relevant test would have attempted to see if Oswald could score hits on consecutive shots 5 seconds apart. It would also have been redundant since Oswald already proved that it was possible to do so and that it didn't require an expert marksman to do it.
It is comical that you would cite the limo bullet fragments as evidence that FMJ bullets shatter into dozens of fragments when they strike skulls. This is a hilarious gaffe. I notice you didn't explain how a bullet fragment that supposedly transited a human skull could end up with a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. Not a single bullet fragment in any of the JFK wound ballistics tests emerged with such deformation--not one.
I don't have to prove that. You are the one claiming that is impossible so the burden of proof is on you.
Please cite which of the JFK wound ballistics tests was fired through a human skull filled with ballistic gelatin.
-
While I'm sure Hickey Howard (as those of us who knew him best always called him) was a talented gunsmith who adopted stray puppies and never beat his wife, the fact is that he pretty well destroyed George Hickey's life with his insane theory. Mortal Error is based 100% on Donahue. Hickey sued him and everyone involved in multiple forums but lost on purely technical (statute of limitation) grounds. Hickey probably belongs with Ruth Paine and Clay Shaw on the Mt. Rushmore of those defamed by CT wackos. There is a woman at the Ed Forum (but of course!) named Denise Hazelwood who is doing her fanatical best to keep the defamation alive: https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/.
-
Howard Donahue was a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert. He was also a WWII veteran and a world-class rifleman. He was one of the 12 riflemen invited to fire in the 1967 CBS rifle test, and he was the only one who scored three hits in under 6 seconds (he did so on his third attempt). Donahue became interested in the JFK case and produced important research on the JFK shooting. Donahue's research is the subject of Bonar Menninger's 1992 book Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK. Donahue passed away in December 1999.
Goodish wordage re Donahue.
And dont forget the goodish book by McLaren extending the goodish work of Donahue.
We now know that jfk woz hit on the back of the head by lead splatter from Oswald's shot-1 at about pseudo Z105-Z110, which ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm & left 2 halves of the jacket in the limo, & we know that the remnant main slug made a hole throo the floor of the limo.
We now know that Hickey fired an accidental auto-burst of at least 4 shots at about Z300-Z312, the first injuring Tague, the last hitting jfk in the head, the 2nd last denting the chrome trim.
We now know that Oswald fired just 2 shots, at about pseudo Z105-Z110 & at about Z218.5, & had 1 non-fired bullet remaining.
-
Goodish wordage re Donahue.
And dont forget the goodish book by McLaren extending the goodish work of Donahue.
We now know that jfk woz hit on the back of the head by lead splatter from Oswald's shot-1 at about pseudo Z105-Z110, which ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm & left 2 halves of the jacket in the limo, & we know that the remnant main slug made a hole throo the floor of the limo.
We now know that Hickey fired an accidental auto-burst of at least 4 shots at about Z300-Z312, the first injuring Tague, the last hitting jfk in the head, the 2nd last denting the chrome trim.
We now know that Oswald fired just 2 shots, at about pseudo Z105-Z110 & at about Z218.5, & had 1 non-fired bullet remaining.
Silly people know lots of things that just aren't true.
-
Goodish wordage re Donahue.
And dont forget the goodish book by McLaren extending the goodish work of Donahue.
Yes, Donahue does have his defenders. McLaren is a former Australian police detective. His book and documentary JFK: The Smoking Gun defends Donahue's core conclusions.
We now know that jfk woz hit on the back of the head by lead splatter from Oswald's shot-1 at about pseudo Z105-Z110, which ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm & left 2 halves of the jacket in the limo,
This goes far beyond Donahue's conclusions about the back-of-head fragments and the limo fragments. He put the pavement shot at no earlier than Z145. A shot at pseudo-Z105-110 from the sixth-floor window is wildly problematic and implausible.
& we know that the remnant main slug made a hole throo the floor of the limo.
I don't think we know any such thing. This is pure speculation.
We now know that Hickey fired an accidental auto-burst of at least 4 shots at about Z300-Z312, the first injuring Tague, the last hitting jfk in the head, the 2nd last denting the chrome trim.
No gunfire burst from Hickey from Z300-312 could have caused Tague's wound. Tague was hit long before the head shot.
Now, the chrome dent is very interesting. If we had any evidence that Hickey did fire an auto-burst, it would be entirely plausible to posit that one of his shots caused the deep chrome dent.
The lone-gunman theory has no way to explain the chrome dent. There is no plausible trajectory from JFK's head wounds to the chrome dent--not even close. The WC floated the false claim that the chrome was dented before the assassination, but footage of the limo before the Dallas motorcade refutes this claim. Yet, we still see some WC apologists repeating it.
We now know that Oswald fired just 2 shots, at about pseudo Z105-Z110 & at about Z218.5, & had 1 non-fired bullet remaining.
I don't think we know any such thing. The Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound starting at Z200, as even the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged, which is part of the reason the panel put the first hit at around Z188-190. This was a crucial, historic admission because the sixth-floor gunman's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210, which means the first hit did not come from the sixth-floor window.
If Oswald allegedly fired his supposed second shot at Z218, and if his first alleged shot came at pseudo-Z105-110, what shot, pray tell, hit JFK at Z188-190? This just does not work.
And how do you account for JFK's dramatic Z226-232 reaction? His torso is visibly jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward. This is clearly a different hit than the Z188-190 hit.
I am actually open to the idea of a shot occurring during the suspicious break in the Zapruder film that was supposedly caused when Zapruder allegedly temporarily stopped filming at around Z132. Zapruder indicated he did not stop filming the motorcade until after it passed under the triple underpass. It would have made no sense for him to stop filming at Z132 when he could see the limo was only seconds away from turning onto Elm Street. I suspect this portion of the film was removed because it showed reactions to gunfire.
As a side note, I suggest you look at the evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. Ideologically, I would have no problem assuming Oswald was one of the shooters, but I think the weight of the evidence shows he was not on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
-
MG: The level of ignorance and bias displayed in your comments is further proof that you have no business discussing the JFK assassination in a public forum.
JC: Oh, the irony.
No irony. Just a factual statement.
MG: You don't even have a minimal understanding of the forensic and wound ballistics evidence in the case, nor do you seem to know anything about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates.
JC: Neither of us is an expert in these areas and one of us actually realizes that.
How does this dodge address the point that you clearly know nothing about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates?
MG: If you did, you would know better than to cite the fraudulent trajectory analyses of Dale Myers.
JC: Tell us what is fraudulent about it. If you can't, we can just dismiss your declarations as so much bluster.
IOW, you still haven't read my article "The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory." Moreover, Myers' SBT trajectory analysis was debunked by Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers in their historic 2023 SBT trajectory analysis, an analysis that dwarfed all previous analyses in complexity and data.
To get some idea of the poor quality of Myers' writings on other issues, I suggest you read my reply to Myers' book on the Tippit shooting:
Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view
MG: It is also clear that you've read very little if any of the research of responsible scholars who reject the lone-gunman scenario.
JC: Define "responsible scholar". Do you get a certificate of some kind when you become one?
Oh! Well, so do you think that no scholar who posits a conspiracy in the JFK case can be a "responsible scholar"?
I notice in another reply that you brushed aside Dr. David Mantik's historic research on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays with the flimsy argument that his research is invalid/unimportant because he's not a forensic pathologist. As a radiation oncologist who also has a doctorate in physics, Dr. Mantik knows more about the mechanics and qualities of x-ray film, the optical-density measuring of x-rays, and the physics of bullet behavior than any forensic pathologist.
MG: I already quoted what DiMaio said on FMJ ammo vs. frangible ammo in a post to which you replied just last week, in my "Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos" thread. I'm guessing you missed this because you only skimmed through my post. It says volumes about the shallow level of your knowledge that you don't already know what DiMaio said on this issue.
JC: I know Di Maio is an LN.
Oh, you "know" that, huh? Do you know that DiMaio later changed his mind about the SBT? Do you know that DiMaio said FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of fragments and specified that x-rays that show dozens of fragments, a "lead snowstorm," rule out FMJ ammo? Let's read, yet again, what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets leaving fragments:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point the bullet perforated bone. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 166, emphasis added)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.
One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4]. In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine “dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
Have you studied the x-rays of the skulls used in the WC's wound ballistics tests? Did you notice that the bullet fragmentation on those skull x-rays, both in its amount and pattern--looks nothing like the bullet fragmentation on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays?
Are you aware that the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics tests failed to shatter into dozens of fragments, much less leave two or more fragments below and lateral to the entry point?
Are you aware that Dr. Lattimer's wound ballistics test, for what it's worth given Lattimer's shady record, failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays? None of his FMJ bullets deposited two fragments and several particles 1 cm below and lateral to the entry point. Also, his FMJ bullets' fragmentation pattern was the exact opposite of the pattern described in the autopsy report.
I should add that Lattimer, oblivious that he was making a fatal admission, stated that his FMJ bullets removed "almost the entire right hemisphere of the brain," which he said was what the JFK skull x-rays show (p. 30)! But Dr. Michael Baden admitted that the autopsy brain photos show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter. So, either the brain photos are right or the skull x-rays are right--one of them is wrong.
Lattimer was correct: The x-rays do in fact show most of the right hemisphere of the brain to be missing, which severely contradicts the alleged autopsy brain photos. The brain photos show a large cut in the brain along the length of the brain, but they show virtually no missing tissue, a fact that Dr. Baden himself admitted to Bugliosi.
Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the most qualified radiologists to ever study the autopsy skull x-rays, said the x-rays shows a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing. Humes told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away. Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has examined the skull x-rays at the National Archives, has likewise said they show a large portion of the right brain to be missing. And, Dr. Mantik has confirmed via multiple optical-density measurements that the x-rays show a large portion of the right side of the brain to be missing. Obviously, the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.
MG: You contend it's "very plausible" that Humes mismeasured the entry wound by 0.5 mm, assuming the wound was 6.5 mm instead of 6.0 mm. This is hardly "very plausible" when we're talking about a wound measured with a ruler or a caliper. A 0.5 mm measuring error of a wound less than 7 mm wide would be a rather pronounced error even for a first-year pathology student.
JC: So after decades of telling us how incompetent the autopsy team was, you now cite one of its conclusions to bolster your argument.
Another one of your misleading dodges. I've never, ever, ever argued that the autopsy doctors were so unbelievably incompetent that they could have made the kinds of staggering errors that most of your side claims they made.
MG: But you guys, since most of you go with the cowlick entry site, must not only assume that Humes mismeasured the entry wound but that he, Boswell, and Finck made the mind-boggling blunder of mislocating the wound by a staggering 10 cm, that they somehow, someway mistook a wound above the lambdoid suture for a wound 10 cm lower, 1 cm above the EOP, when they had the EOP and the lambda as fixed reference points, not to mention the hairline.
JC: As I explained to you already, once Oswald's bullet went through JFK's head, it became a jumbled mass of bone fragments held loosely together by a lacerated scalp. One of Wecht's criticisms of the autopsy was that they failed to take measurements from standard points of reference for a medico-legal autopsy which this team was performing for the first time.
And as I've explained to you already, that is total nonsense. Not even the HSCA FPP majority used that bogus argument to try to explain the autopsy doctors' alleged "misplacement" of the rear head entry wound by an unbelievable 10 cm (3.93 inches). As I've also pointed out to you already, even the autopsy photos show the skull was not nearly as damaged as you are claiming--indeed, those photos show the back of the head intact, so there was no reason the autopsy doctors should have had any trouble distinguishing between a wound 1 cm above the EOP and a wound 10 cm higher, 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. A half-blind first-year medical student would not make such an error.
It is no wonder the autopsy doctors were flabbergasted when the FPP majority accused them of making such an unbelievable, unfathomable error.
MG: You guys must also assume that Humes, Boswell, and Finck somehow "missed" the glaringly obvious high fragment trail on the skull x-rays, or, equally mind boggling, that they mistook it for a fragment trail that was 2 inches lower, that started near different fixed reference points, and that had the opposite trajectory (low-to-high vs. high-to-low). Why must you assume this? Because the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and because they said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report.
JC: Thank you for your assessment Dr. Griffith. Now can you cite any competent forensic medical examiners to support your position.
LOL! How can you not know this stuff? Umm, the fact that the extant autopsy skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report was acknowledged by the FPP and by the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel (which included Spitz and Hodges). It is astounding that you are unaware of such basic information.
In contrast, the Clark Panel floated the hilarious argument that the high fragment trail lines up with the EOP entry site and that the high fragment trail is the same fragment trail described in the autopsy report!
MG: The woeful level of your knowledge shines through in your silly comment that the CBS rifle test was "a completely pointless exercise because Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots." As many, many scholars have pointed out, even if one assumes that the alleged lone gunman started firing before the limo passed under the oak tree, he still would have to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo cleared the oak tree--unless, of course, one wants to argue that the first hit on JFK happened before Z166, which no WC apologist claims. This is basic JFK Case 101 stuff, but you don't even have a handle on this foundational material. (BTW, in the WC's rifle test, which involved three Master-rated riflemen using the alleged murder weapon itself, their second and third shots missed nearly every time.)
JC: A relevant test would have attempted to see if Oswald could score hits on consecutive shots 5 seconds apart. It would also have been redundant since Oswald already proved that it was possible to do so and that it didn't require an expert marksman to do it.
Huh?! You don't even seem to understand the basic requirements of the lone-gunman shooting scenario. Do you understand that the sixth-floor window's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210? Do you understand that if the sixth-floor gunman missed with a pre-Z166 shot, he would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds when he resumed firing at Z210, but that the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots and scored hits on the majority of their first shots?
If the alleged shooting feat did not require an expert marksman, why did the WC's three Master-rated riflemen markedly fail to duplicate it? Why did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test fail to duplicate it, even though the test counted as "hits" any shot that landed far from the area that Oswald allegedly hit with two of his shots? Why did the Marine Corps' greatest and most legendary sniper, Carlos Hathcock, conclude there was no way Oswald could have done the shooting attributed to him by the WC?
MG: It is comical that you would cite the limo bullet fragments as evidence that FMJ bullets shatter into dozens of fragments when they strike skulls. This is a hilarious gaffe. I notice you didn't explain how a bullet fragment that supposedly transited a human skull could end up with a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. Not a single bullet fragment in any of the JFK wound ballistics tests emerged with such deformation--not one.
JC: I don't have to prove that. You are the one claiming that is impossible so the burden of proof is on you.
Another flimsy dodge. I notice you snipped my point that none of the fragments in the WC's wound ballistics tests looked anything like this.
Anyway, I am citing the documented fact that one of the limo fragments had a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. I am simply asking you to explain how a bullet that transited a human skull could produce such a fragment, given the fact that not one of the fragments in the WC's wound ballistics test ended up in this condition. In fact, not one of the fragments in any other JFK wound ballistics tests has ended up in this condition either.
Here's the simple, logical answer: The limo fragment in question did not go through JFK's head. That's why it looks nothing like any fragments from any known JFK wound ballistics test.
-
Why did no one else in the secret service car including Kennedy loyalists Powers and O’Donnel hear an AR-15 being fired?
-
No irony. Just a factual statement.
Because you say so.
How does this dodge address the point that you clearly know nothing about the substantial disagreements among your side's advocates?
My side is the truth. There are many LNs with ideas as wacky as any CT and they are not on my side.
IOW, you still haven't read my article "The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory."
I don't recall authorizing you to hand out homework assignments to me.
Moreover, Myers' SBT trajectory analysis was debunked by Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers in their historic 2023 SBT trajectory analysis, an analysis that dwarfed all previous analyses in complexity and data.
Disagreeing doesn't equate to debunking. The Knott Laboratory was paid for by CT John Orr. I found three articles on the Knott Laboratory work. It sounds like they used methodology similar to Myers, using a laser to create a digitized 3D version of Dealey Plaza and overlaying the Z-film into that model. It seems they came up with a different answer than Myers but that hardly makes them right and Myers wrong. The articles I read gave a very vague description of the Knott Laboratory conclusions so it's hard to measure them against Myers highly detailed work. No specific reasons were given for why Knott rejected the SBT.
To get some idea of the poor quality of Myers' writings on other issues, I suggest you read my reply to Myers' book on the Tippit shooting:
Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view
I can read enough of your tripe on this forum. I don't need to hunt down extra.
Oh! Well, so do you think that no scholar who posits a conspiracy in the JFK case can be a "responsible scholar"?
You are the one who inserted the term "responsible scholar' into the conversation. I simply asked you what your criteria is for being a "responsible scholar".
I notice in another reply that you brushed aside Dr. David Mantik's historic research on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays with the flimsy argument that his research is invalid/unimportant because he's not a forensic pathologist. As a radiation oncologist who also has a doctorate in physics, Dr. Mantik knows more about the mechanics and qualities of x-ray film, the optical-density measuring of x-rays, and the physics of bullet behavior than any forensic pathologist.
A radiology oncologist is someone who treats cancer patients with radiation. Such a person might consult with a radiologist in reading x-rays, but radiation oncologists have a different skill set than a radiologist. In fact, a radiation oncologist is more likely to look at CT scans, MRIs, and PET scans. None of these activities qualify Mantik as a qualified forensic pathologist. I would gladly wager he has never appeared in court to testify as an expert witness in that field.
Oh, you "know" that, huh? Do you know that DiMaio later changed his mind about the SBT? Do you know that DiMaio said FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of fragments and specified that x-rays that show dozens of fragments, a "lead snowstorm," rule out FMJ ammo? Let's read, yet again, what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets leaving fragments:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point the bullet perforated bone. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 166, emphasis added)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.
One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4]. In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine “dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
Can you cite a source and a quote in which Di Maio rejects the SBT. His words, not your interpretations of what he said.
Have you studied the x-rays of the skulls used in the WC's wound ballistics tests? Did you notice that the bullet fragmentation on those skull x-rays, both in its amount and pattern--looks nothing like the bullet fragmentation on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays?
Of course I haven't. I leave that to people who are qualified to analyze x-rays of homicide victims. That doesn't include you.
Are you aware that the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics tests failed to shatter into dozens of fragments, much less leave two or more fragments below and lateral to the entry point?
Why would you expect bullets to shatter in the same manner in different shootings.
Are you aware that Dr. Lattimer's wound ballistics test, for what it's worth given Lattimer's shady record, failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays? None of his FMJ bullets deposited two fragments and several particles 1 cm below and lateral to the entry point. Also, his FMJ bullets' fragmentation pattern was the exact opposite of the pattern described in the autopsy report.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "Well, there you go again.". You resort to red herring of demanding a shooting be duplicated which is impossible. There are way too many variables.
I should add that Lattimer, oblivious that he was making a fatal admission, stated that his FMJ bullets removed "almost the entire right hemisphere of the brain," which he said was what the JFK skull x-rays show (p. 30)! But Dr. Michael Baden admitted that the autopsy brain photos show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter. So, either the brain photos are right or the skull x-rays are right--one of them is wrong.
It's always a red flag for me when someone quotes a word or a phrase out of context and doesn't provide a source. It's usually a sign the person is trying to misrepresent what someone else has to say. Provide your source for Baden's full statement on this matter.
Lattimer was correct: The x-rays do in fact show most of the right hemisphere of the brain to be missing, which severely contradicts the alleged autopsy brain photos. The brain photos show a large cut in the brain along the length of the brain, but they show virtually no missing tissue, a fact that Dr. Baden himself admitted to Bugliosi.
Still more of your interpretation of Baden's comments.
Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the most qualified radiologists to ever study the autopsy skull x-rays, said the x-rays shows a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing. Humes told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away. Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has examined the skull x-rays at the National Archives, has likewise said they show a large portion of the right brain to be missing. And, Dr. Mantik has confirmed via multiple optical-density measurements that the x-rays show a large portion of the right side of the brain to be missing. Obviously, the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.
Z313 was enough to convince me a large portion of JFK's brain was blown out.
Another one of your misleading dodges. I've never, ever, ever argued that the autopsy doctors were so unbelievably incompetent that they could have made the kinds of staggering errors that most of your side claims they made.
Again, my only side is the truth. I'm not bound to defend every quirky idea an LN has proposed.
And as I've explained to you already, that is total nonsense. Not even the HSCA FPP majority used that bogus argument to try to explain the autopsy doctors' alleged "misplacement" of the rear head entry wound by an unbelievable 10 cm (3.93 inches). As I've also pointed out to you already, even the autopsy photos show the skull was not nearly as damaged as you are claiming--indeed, those photos show the back of the head intact, so there was no reason the autopsy doctors should have had any trouble distinguishing between a wound 1 cm above the EOP and a wound 10 cm higher, 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. A half-blind first-year medical student would not make such an error. [/quote]
Neuropathologist Peter Cummings has pointed out the massive fracturing of JFK's skull, showing the primary fracture lines radiating from the entrance wound and the secondary fracture lines running roughly perpendicular to those. I posted a shorter version of this video earlier bu this one does a much more thorough job of explaining the fractures in JFK's skull. It also shows quite graphically what happens when Carcano bullets impact a skull. Unlike with JFK, these skulls were not covered with scalp to hold them together.
in addition to this expert analysis of the fracture pattern in JFK's skull, we have the visual evidence in the Z-film which shows a flap of JFK's skull hanging down the right side of his head following the fatal shot.
It is no wonder the autopsy doctors were flabbergasted when the FPP majority accused them of making such an unbelievable, unfathomable error.
LOL! How can you not know this stuff? Umm, the fact that the extant autopsy skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report was acknowledged by the FPP and by the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel (which included Spitz and Hodges). It is astounding that you are unaware of such basic information.
I have long been aware that the autopsy team and the FPP had differences. They concurred on the core finding that both shots that struck JFK were fired from above an behind him.
In contrast, the Clark Panel floated the hilarious argument that the high fragment trail lines up with the EOP entry site and that the high fragment trail is the same fragment trail described in the autopsy report!
Huh?! You don't even seem to understand the basic requirements of the lone-gunman shooting scenario. Do you understand that the sixth-floor window's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210?
Of course I know that. It's JFK Assassination 101. Why would you think I didn't know that.
Do you understand that if the sixth-floor gunman missed with a pre-Z166 shot, he would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds when he resumed firing at Z210, but that the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots and scored hits on the majority of their first shots?
Actually, Oswald went 2/2 in 4.9 seconds, firing his second shot in the Z219-220 window and the fatal head shot in the Z310-311 window. That's 91 frames. That comes out to 4.97 seconds.
If the alleged shooting feat did not require an expert marksman, why did the WC's three Master-rated riflemen markedly fail to duplicate it?
They were given 5.6 seconds to fire THREE shots. That gave them much less time to reacquire the targe, aim the rifle, and squeeze of the shots.
Why did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test fail to duplicate it,
They weren't trying to duplicate what Oswald did. They were trying to see how feasible it would be for Oswald to fire all three of his shots iin 5.6 seconds. It didn't appear to be very feasible which is a moot point because Oswald only had to fire two shots within that tight window of time.
even though the test counted as "hits" any shot that landed far from the area that Oswald allegedly hit with two of his shots? Why did the Marine Corps' greatest and most legendary sniper, Carlos Hathcock, conclude there was no way Oswald could have done the shooting attributed to him by the WC?
Once again you resort to the red herring argument that no one has duplicated Oswald's shooting. No shooting in the history of firearms has ever been perfectly duplicated. The JFKA is the only one I know of where anyone has even made such a demand. I have seen the claim that Hathcock supposedly made and it is always a third person account. I know of nowhere that quotes Hathcock directly. Hathcock once had a confirmed kill at 800 yard in which he fired at the reflection of the counter sniper's scope. The next day a patrol found the body of the North Vietnamese sniper with his scope shattered and the back of his head blown out. That shooting was the basis for the scene in Saving Private Ryan in which the American sniper fired a shot through the scope of the German sniper in a church tower. I'm quite sure Carlos Hathcock would have no trouble scoring a kill shot at a mere 88 yards.
I was a juror in a murder trial. The prosecution didn't even try to duplicate the shooting. We convicted the defendant anyway. Can you think of any other homicide case in which the prosecutors were expected to duplicate the shooting.
Another flimsy dodge. I notice you snipped my point that none of the fragments in the WC's wound ballistics tests looked anything like this.
Do you really expect the fragmenting of bullets to come out the same.. That's even sillier than demanding the shooting be duplicated.
Anyway, I am citing the documented fact that one of the limo fragments had a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat, with one edge literally forming a razor edge. I am simply asking you to explain how a bullet that transited a human skull could produce such a fragment, given the fact that not one of the fragments in the WC's wound ballistics test ended up in this condition. In fact, not one of the fragments in any other JFK wound ballistics tests has ended up in this condition either.
I don't need to explain it. We have the fragment and that is just how it turned out. The real mystery is why you think this is even relevant. If you are going to claim it is impossible for the bullet to fragment in that manner, the burden is on you to prove that hypothesis.
Here's the simple, logical answer: The limo fragment in question did not go through JFK's head. That's why it looks nothing like any fragments from any known JFK wound ballistics test.
You really show how goofy your arguments have become when you insist that bullets fragment in predictable ways. It is totally random. Shootings are like snowflakes. No two are exactly alike.
-
Oswald went 2/2 in 4.9 seconds, firing his second shot in the Z219-220 window and the fatal head shot in the Z310-311 window. That's 91 frames. That comes out to 4.97 seconds.
[The Warren Commission's expert shooters] were given 5.6 seconds to fire THREE shots. That gave them much less time to reacquire the targe, aim the rifle, and squeeze of the shots.
They weren't trying to duplicate what Oswald did. They were trying to see how feasible it would be for Oswald to fire all three of his shots in 5.6 seconds. The fact that it didn't appear to be very feasible is a moot point because Oswald only had to fire two shots within that tight window of time.
Dear John,
Please don't confuse Michael T. Griffith with the facts.
Your Lone Gunman Advocate Colleague,
-- Tom