JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 10, 2026, 01:59:26 PM
-
Here are 10 reasons to believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK:
1. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
The ammo that hit Kennedy's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments (practically particles) and a few larger fragments, deposited at least three fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and left two fragments in the very front of the skull near the right orbit. Oswald allegedly used FMJ bullets, but FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner.
2. Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it.
3. The trajectory of JFK's back wound was slightly upward, both at its entry point and beyond. No sixth-floor gunman could have fired this shot. The only way that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then tunneled at an upward angle was if JFK had been leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck, a fact admitted by the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) medical panel (FPP).
4. PSE (aka VSA) polygraph analysis of Oswald's statements that he didn't shoot anyone and that he was just a patsy indicates he was telling the truth.
5. Three tests of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek, including the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test, found no traces of nitrates, strongly indicating that he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.
The three tests were the Dallas Police Department's diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, the FBI's spectrographic paraffin test, and the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test. The results of the NAA test were suppressed for years until pried loose by a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg.
We now know that Warren Commission (WC) attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, stating that they provided "no basis for concluding" that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. This damning memo only came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Weisberg.
6.The alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's marksmanship ability. Oswald was not even remotely skilled or experienced enough to have performed the shooting feat that the WC claimed he did. Rifle tests have proven that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.
7. Oswald had no motive for shooting JFK. By all accounts, he admired JFK. In the days leading up to the assassination, Oswald was talking with his wife Marina about getting back together and getting their own apartment.
Many WC defenders claim that Oswald shot JFK to prove to the Cubans and/or the Soviets that he was devoted to the Marxist cause, but Oswald behaved nothing like an ideologically motivated assassin. Instead, he fiercely denied shooting JFK at every opportunity, told his family not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and said he was a patsy. In contrast, throughout history, assassins who were motivated by ideology have proudly taken credit for their crimes. Oswald did the opposite.
8. HSCA investigators Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway found evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City about two months before the assassination. The committee decided to suppress the explosive Lopez-Hardway report that presented this evidence, but the report was released in redacted form in 1996 and in a less-redacted form in 2003.
9. Anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassination some two months ahead of time. This was revealed by Silvio Odio and corroborated by her sister Annie in 1964. The HSCA, to its great credit, acknowledged that Silvia Odio's account is credible.
We now know that the WC was aware of Odio's account and knew she was a credible witness. In an internal WC memo, one of the Commission’s attorneys, David Slawson, said Odio was “checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence." Another one of the WC's attorneys, Wesley Liebeler, in another internal memo, expressed doubts about the Commission's rejection of Odio's account, saying "Odio may well be right" and warned that the WC would "look bad if it turns out" she was telling the truth. Nevertheless, the WC rejected Odio's account as "mistaken."
10. When we look at the evidence that supposedly proves Oswald's guilt, we find serious problems with it in virtually every instance. Those few items of evidence that are not fraught with problems are of an indirect nature and do not necessarily prove of his guilt.
In an interview with the Dallas Morning News in November 1969, none other than Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window:
We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.
Curry made similar statements in other interviews.
As just one example of the problems with the supposed evidence against Oswald, let's briefly consider the latent palmprint that the Dallas police belatedly claimed to have found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon.
Lt. J. C. Day claimed to have discovered the latent palmprint on the night of the assassination at around 8:00 PM. Yet, he said nothing about the palmprint to the FBI when he handed over the rifle and other evidence to the FBI the next day, and the palmprint was not forwarded to the FBI until seven days later.
Lt. Day said he could still see the palmprint on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints.
Incredibly, Lt. Day failed to take a single photo of the palmprint, even though he took photos of the worthless prints on the rifle's trigger guard.
When asked to explain this shocking violation of standard police procedure, Lt. Day said he didn't take photos of the palmprint because Chief Curry called him at around 8:30 and told him to stop all work on the rifle because the FBI would finish what he had started. However, by Lt. Day's own admission, he took a photo of the rifle after Chief Curry called him, but still didn't take a photo of the all-important palmprint.
We now know that even the WC had doubts about the palmprint. An FBI memo released years after the WC dissolved reveals that the Commission's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin, told the FBI that there was "serious doubt in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source."
We also now know that when the FBI asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement about how he obtained the palmprint, he refused.
These are just some of the problems with the latent palmprint, yet pro-WC books cite the palmprint as strong evidence of Oswald's guilt. For more information on the reasons to doubt the palmprint's value as evidence, see my article "Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted
on the Alleged Murder Weapon? Some Questions About the Latent Palmprint." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzWhdO-Ak3nbuxl8vsy62-fpLTBMBvPx/view?usp=sharing)
-
Here are 10 reasons to believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK:
1. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
The ammo that hit Kennedy's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments (practically particles) and a few larger fragments, deposited at least three fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and left two fragments in the very front of the skull near the right orbit. Oswald allegedly used FMJ bullets, but FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner.
An amazingly stupid claim given that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo that had two pieces which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle.
2. Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it.
Pure BS. The only person who said he saw Oswald at the time of the shooting was Howard Brennan and he saw him shooting the rifle. There are no witnesses who said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the time of the shooting. There is no one who gives Oswald an alibi.
3. The trajectory of JFK's back wound was slightly upward, both at its entry point and beyond. No sixth-floor gunman could have fired this shot. The only way that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then tunneled at an upward angle was if JFK had been leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck, a fact admitted by the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) medical panel (FPP).
More BS. The entry wound on the back was higher than the exit wound in the front. If you think otherwise, tell us where you think the shot that hit JFK in the back was fired from, your evidence that supports that shot, and where you think that bullet went.
4. PSE polygraph analysis of Oswald's statements that he didn't shoot anyone and that he was just a patsy indicates he was telling the truth.
Oswald never took a polygraph. Do you just type things that pop into your head?
5. Three tests of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek, including the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test, found no traces of nitrates, strongly indicating that he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.
The three tests were the Dallas Police Department's diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, the FBI's spectrographic paraffin test, and the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test. The results of the NAA test were suppressed for years until pried loose by a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg.
We now know that Warren Commission (WC) attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, stating that they provided "no basis for concluding" that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. This damning memo only came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Weisberg.
An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and then took a paraffin test on his right cheek. He too tested negative, proving the Carcano could be fired without leaving nitrates on the shooter's cheek. This was explained in the WCR. Have you ever read it?
6.The alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's marksmanship ability. Oswald was not even remotely skilled or experienced enough to have performed the shooting feat that the WC claimed he did. Rifle tests have proven that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.
Repeating a lie thousands of times over decades will not make it come true. Oswald was capable of consistently hitting a target at ranges of 200 yards and more in order to twice qualify by USMC standards. That was without the aid of a scope. When he shot JFK, his longest shot was only 88 yards and was aided by a scope.
7. Oswald had no motive for shooting JFK. By all accounts, he admired JFK. In the days leading up to the assassination, Oswald was talking with his wife Marina about getting back together and getting their own apartment.
Many WC defenders claim that Oswald shot JFK to prove to the Cubans and/or the Soviets that he was devoted to the Marxist cause, but Oswald behaved nothing like an ideologically motivated assassin. Instead, he fiercely denied shooting JFK at every opportunity, told his family not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and said he was a patsy. In contrast, throughout history, assassins who were motivated by ideology have proudly taken credit for their crimes. Oswald did the opposite.
Oswald had a motive. He just didn't tell anybody what it was. The fact that his motive can't be proven doesn't mean he didn't have one.
8. HSCA investigators Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway found evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City about two months before the assassination. The committee decided to suppress the explosive Lopez-Hardway report that presented this evidence, but the report was released in redacted form in 1996 and in a less-redacted form in 2003.
Tell us how that proves Oswald did not shoot JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963.
9. Anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassination some two months ahead of time. This was revealed by Silvio Odio and corroborated by her sister Annie in 1964. The HSCA, to its great credit, acknowledged that Silvia Odio's account is credible.
We now know that the WC was aware of Odio's account and knew she was a credible witness. In an internal WC memo, one of the Commission’s attorneys, David Slawson, said Odio was “checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence." Another one of the WC's attorneys, Wesley Liebeler, in another internal memo, expressed doubts about the Commission's rejection of Odio's account, saying "Odio may well be right" and warned that the WC would "look bad if it turns out" she was telling the truth. Nevertheless, the WC rejected Odio's account as "mistaken."
Tell us how those Cubans knew two months in advance that JFK's motorcade would be routed right past Oswald's workplace. It would have been pretty silly to try to frame Oswald without knowing that?
10. When we look at the evidence that supposedly proves Oswald's guilt, we find serious problems with it in virtually every instance. Those few items of evidence that are not fraught with problems are of an indirect nature and do not necessarily prove of his guilt.
Indirect my aching Bahookie. We don't find serious problems with the evidence. Only dedicated Oswald deniers such as yourself reach for any excuse imaginable to dismiss each and every piece of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt. The is no universe where the body of evidence could point to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
In an interview with the Dallas Morning News in November 1969, none other than Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window:
We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.
Curry made similar statements in other interviews.
As just one example of the problems with the supposed evidence against Oswald, let's briefly consider the latent palmprint that the Dallas police belatedly claimed to have found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon.
Lt. J. C. Day claimed to have discovered the latent palmprint on the night of the assassination at around 8:00 PM. Yet, he said nothing about the palmprint to the FBI when he handed over the rifle and other evidence to the FBI the next day, and the palmprint was not forwarded to the FBI until seven days later.
Lt. Day said he could still see the palmprint on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even
been processed for prints.
Incredibly, Lt. Day failed to take a single photo of the palmprint, even though he took photos of the worthless prints on the rifle's trigger guard.
When asked to explain this shocking violation of standard police procedure, Lt. Day said he didn't take photos of the palmprint because Chief Curry called him at around 8:30 and told him to stop all work on the rifle because the FBI would finish what he had started. However, by Lt. Day's own admission, he took a photo of the rifle after Chief Curry called him, but still didn't take a photo of the all-important palmprint.
We now know that even the WC had doubts about the palmprint. An FBI memo released years after the WC dissolved reveals that the Commission's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin, told the FBI that there was "serious doubt in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source."
We also now know that when the FBI asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement about how he obtained the palmprint, he refused.
These are just some of the problems with the latent palmprint, yet pro-WC books cite the palmprint as strong evidence of Oswald's guilt. For more information on the reasons to doubt the palmprint's value as evidence, see my article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzWhdO-Ak3nbuxl8vsy62-fpLTBMBvPx/view?usp=sharing]"Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted
on the Alleged Murder Weapon? Some Questions About the Latent Palmprint"[/url].
Duncan should retitle this thread, 10 Reasons to Laugh at Michael T. Griffith. Not that we needed more reasons to do that.
-
Here are 10 reasons to believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK:
3. The trajectory of JFK's back wound was slightly upward, both at its entry point and beyond. No sixth-floor gunman could have fired this shot. The only way that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then tunneled at an upward angle was if JFK had been leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck, a fact admitted by the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) medical panel (FPP).
Michael,
What do you make of the observation made during the autopsy that the bullet that entered the President's back (several inches below the shoulder and to the right of the spine) had hit JFK at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees and did not penetrate more than an inch or so? Did this bullet fall out and became CE 399? The ammo was presumably as ancient as the rifle, like more than 20 years old, and perhaps the bullet wasn't discharged properly?
What is your theory about the location of the assassin to the rear of JFK?
-
An amazingly stupid claim given that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo that had two pieces which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle.
One, I guess it has just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting.
Two, I guess it has also just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments could not have come from the head-shot ammo, given the known, established fact of forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment into dozens of tiny fragments, much less do so while also depositing several fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon entry and while also magically somehow depositing two fragments at the opposite end of the skull with no other fragments or particles anywhere near them.
Three, obviously, you don't care about all the problems with the chain of custody of the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo and in JFK's body.
Pure BS.
No, it's not. You haven't even read the evidence under discussion. You have no idea what it says. You constantly denounce evidence you haven't even studied.
The only person who said he saw Oswald at the time of the shooting was Howard Brennan and he saw him shooting the rifle.
Brennan's belated, coerced "identification" of Oswald as the man he saw in the window is a joke. Most prosecutors would not dare use such a doubtful, problematic identification in a trial.
There are no witnesses who said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the time of the shooting. There is no one who gives Oswald an alibi.
You must know you're being deceptive here. None of this actually directly addresses what I said. Let me repeat what I wrote:
Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it.
Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor no more than 5-10 minutes before JFK's motorcade was scheduled to drive through Dealey Plaza.
Sarah Stanton's family said Sarah told them she saw and spoke with Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD when the motorcade drove through the plaza.
Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and the Stroud memo make it clear that Oswald could not have come down the stairs in time to make it to the second-floor lunchroom to encounter Officer Baker there, proving that Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
More BS. The entry wound on the back was higher than the exit wound in the front.
This myth was debunked decades ago. Even the HSCA FPP put the back wound below the throat wound. How can you not know such basic stuff?
The rear JFK clothing holes alone are hard physical evidence that the back wound was well below the throat wound.
If you think otherwise, tell us where you think the shot that hit JFK in the back was fired from, your evidence that supports that shot, and where you think that bullet went.
One, I've already done this, several times.
Two, I've pointed out to you several times that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established for an absolute fact through prolonged and extensive probing that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point, that autopsy technicians around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as exit point for the back wound, and that we now know from Dr. Ebersole's released HSCA testimony that Humes knew about the throat wound before the end of the autopsy but then falsely claimed he knew nothing about it until the following morning.
Ignoring these facts won't make them go away.
Three, you need to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have struck JFK at an upward trajectory and tunneled upward from there. Dr. Werner Spitz, one of the FPP majority, admitted in 1975 that the back-wound bullet "penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction" and that the bullet "traveled upwards within the body." He admitted this in his report to the Rockefeller Commission, adding that there was "no doubt" about it:
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
The HSCA FPP likewise noted this exact same fact: that the bullet struck and tunneled at an upward angle.
Oswald never took a polygraph. Do you just type things that pop into your head?
Is this a serious question? Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Did you forget our discussion about O'Toole's PSE/VSA analysis of Oswald's statements to newsmen while he was in police custody? How could you not remember that the PSE/VSA analysis was done from TV footage of Oswald's statements to reporters?
An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and then took a paraffin test on his right cheek. He too tested negative, proving the Carcano could be fired without leaving nitrates on the shooter's cheek. This was explained in the WCR. Have you ever read it?
You must know this is both misleading and irrelevant. That agent's paraffin cast was not subjected to the super-sensitive NAA test, and he was not part of the control test that the FBI conducted to determine the accuracy of the Oakridge NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast.
The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found the NAA test to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces.
Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).
I pointed out these facts to you quite recently. Did you just forget them?
Repeating a lie thousands of times over decades will not make it come true. Oswald was capable of consistently hitting a target at ranges of 200 yards and more in order to twice qualify by USMC standards. That was without the aid of a scope. When he shot JFK, his longest shot was only 88 yards and was aided by a scope.
This kind of deception and omission is why you have no credibility. People who read our previous exchanges on this issue are going to wonder how you could make these statements with a straight face.
Are you ever going to explain why the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, using the alleged murder weapon itself, utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up?
Oswald had a motive. He just didn't tell anybody what it was. The fact that his motive can't be proven doesn't mean he didn't have one. Tell us how that proves Oswald did not shoot JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963.
Oh my! Can you retroactively read minds or something? How do you know Oswald had a motive? What is your basis for adamantly declaring "Oswald had a motive"? Answer: Your circular reasoning that since you believe Oswald shot JFK, you infer that he therefore must have had a motive.
Ask any detective or prosecutor about the importance of establishing a motive in any complex or strongly contested case.
Tell us how those Cubans knew two months in advance that JFK's motorcade would be routed right past Oswald's workplace. It would have been pretty silly to try to frame Oswald without knowing that?
This is juvenile silliness. You are embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical illogic. Even Lance Payette has taken you to task for this silly argument.
How does your backward theorizing explain the Lopez-Hardway evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City? How does it explain Silvia Odio's account, which was corroborated by her sister Annie?
Indirect my aching Bahookie. We don't find serious problems with the evidence. Only dedicated Oswald deniers such as yourself reach for any excuse imaginable to dismiss each and every piece of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt. The is no universe where the body of evidence could point to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
Duncan should retitle this thread, 10 Reasons to Laugh at Michael T. Griffith. Not that we needed more reasons to do that.
So why do you suppose Dallas police chief Jesse Curry told the Dallas Morning News in November 1969 that there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window? Let's read his statement again:
We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.
I notice you said nothing about Curry's statement.
Why did Norman Mailer state that he believed he could have gotten Oswald acquitted if he had been Oswald's lawyer in a trial?
I also notice you said nothing about the fact that the belated DPD claim that Oswald's palmprint had been found on the barrel of the rifle was so suspicious that even the WC doubted the palmprint's origin.
-
I guess it has never occurred to you that the two limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting.
Dear Comrade Griffith,
You've got to be kidding.
-- Tom
PS I think you're sick in the head and should seek help.
-
No.11 reason: the 24” bag (give or take a couple of inches) as Buell W. Frazier described the way he saw Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit and in the cupped palm of his hand.
No.12 reason: per BW Frazier, Oswald was wearing the GRAY jacket that Friday morning. Oswald had only 2 jackets, a gray jacket and a blue jacket. Oswald left TSBD wearing no jacket according to John Corbett because he believes Bledsoe saw Oswald on McWatters bus wearing only the brown shirt with a hole in the sleeve. Ok, if that is true then how does Oswald’s gray jacket which he must have left in the TSBD get to under a car in a parking lot to be pointed out by some unnamed person? Oswald leaving the boarding house zipping up a jacket (per Earlene Roberts), could therefore only be the BLUE jacket. The description of the Tippit shooters “tan” jacket does not fit the BLUE jacket Oswald had on when he left the boarding house. If Oswald discarded this blue jacket before he was seen by Brewer, how does that BLUE jacket wind up being found in the TSBD in the Domino room? And Who found BLUE jacket anyway?
-
One, I guess it has just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting.
Two, I guess it has also just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments could not have come from the head-shot ammo, given the known, established fact of forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment into dozens of tiny fragments, much less do so while also depositing several fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon entry and while also magically somehow depositing two fragments at the opposite end of the skull with no other fragments or particles anywhere near them.
If only you had the power to make things fact simply by asserting them.
Three, obviously, you don't care about all the problems with the chain of custody of the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo and in JFK's body.
The good old chain-of-custody excuse. A long time favorite of the CT gang to wish away damning evidence against Oswald.
No, it's not. You haven't even read the evidence under discussion. You have no idea what it says. You constantly denounce evidence you haven't even studied.
Things don't become evidence simply because you assert them. I will concede that you can invent excuses to dismiss evidence a lot faster than I can refute them.
Brennan's belated, coerced "identification" of Oswald as the man he saw in the window is a joke. Most prosecutors would not dare use such a doubtful, problematic identification in a trial.
Brennan's ID of Oswald is probably one of the least compelling pieces of evidence against him. By itself, it wouldn't be compelling at all. The fact that he eventually IDed the guy who owned the rifle that was the murder weapon is what gives his belated ID credibility. The simple fact is nobody else saw Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting which refutes your BS claim that "Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting."
You must know you're being deceptive here. None of this actually directly addresses what I said. Let me repeat what I wrote:
Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it. [/quote]
Another fine example of things you claim to know that simply aren't true. No witness precludes Oswald from coming down the back stairs to the second floor where he ducked into the lunchroom to avoid running into Baker and Truly coming up the stairs.
Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor no more than 5-10 minutes before JFK's motorcade was scheduled to drive through Dealey Plaza.
That doesn't preclude Oswald from being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. It wouldn't take 5-10 minutes for Oswald to reach the 6th floor from where Arnold thought she saw Oswald.
Sarah Stanton's family said Sarah told them she saw and spoke with Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD when the motorcade drove through the plaza.
Hearsay accounts are not evidence for good reason. Amazing how nobody else saw Oswald on the front steps. Even Oswald never said he was on the front stops watching the motorcade.
Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and the Stroud memo make it clear that Oswald could not have come down the stairs in time to make it to the second-floor lunchroom to encounter Officer Baker there, proving that Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
Just how did they make that clear?
This myth was debunked decades ago. Even the HSCA FPP put the back wound below the throat wound. How can you not know such basic stuff?
The HSCA FPP was speaking of the anatomical position. JFK was not in the anatomical position when he was shot. Are we supposed to believe the FPP refuted their own finding that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. The Secret Service recreation using substitutes for JFK and JBC clearly showed the back wound was higher than the throat wound and was in direct alignment with the entry wound on JBC's back on a downward trajectory.
The rear JFK clothing holes alone are hard physical evidence that the back wound was well below the throat wound.
Total BS.
One, I've already done this, several times.
Why?
Two, I've pointed out to you several times that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established for an absolute fact through prolonged and extensive probing that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point, that autopsy technicians around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as exit point for the back wound, and that we now know from Dr. Ebersole's released HSCA testimony that Humes knew about the throat wound before the end of the autopsy but then falsely claimed he knew nothing about it until the following morning.
Ignoring these facts won't make them go away.
This is why amateurs such as yourself should not delve into areas which require substantial expertise. The fact that a probe would not pass through the bullet channel is not proof that the bullet only penetrated a few inches, which is ludicrous on the surface. It fails to take into account JFK's position on the autopsy table was different from when he was shot in the back. It fails to take into account rigor mortis. Finck explained this in the Clay Shaw trial:
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Three, you need to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have struck JFK at an upward trajectory and tunneled upward from there. Dr. Werner Spitz, one of the FPP majority, admitted in 1975 that the back-wound bullet "penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction" and that the bullet "traveled upwards within the body." He admitted this in his report to the Rockefeller Commission, adding that there was "no doubt" about it:
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
The HSCA FPP likewise noted this exact same fact: that the bullet struck and tunneled at an upward angle.
More evidence why amateurs like you should not try to analyze the medical evidence. The FPP made the following conclusion regarding the shots that hit JFK:
"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. 1 The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front."
Their finding that the bullet entered JFK's back on an upward trajectory was speaking in relation to the angle of his back, not upward from horizontal. Do you honestly believe if they thought the bullet went into JFK's back on an upward trajectory from horizontal would have reached the conclusion which I quoted above.
Is this a serious question? Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Did you forget our discussion about O'Toole's PSE/VSA analysis of Oswald's statements to newsmen while he was in police custody? How could you not remember that the PSE/VSA analysis was done from TV footage of Oswald's statements to reporters?
A voice stress analysis is not a polygraph. Oswald was not taking a polygraph when he made the statement that he didn't shoot anyone. A polygraph measures stress which is an indication of deceit. Since Oswald knew he was not being tested when he made that statement, there was no reason for him to feel stress. A polygraph even under controlled circumstances is not proof positive as to whether or not a person is being truthful.
AI describes voice stress analysis as follows:
"Voice stress analysis (VSA) is a technique that attempts to detect stress or deception by analyzing subtle changes in a person’s voice, though its reliability is highly disputed. (Emphasis mine)
Voice stress analysis (VSA) is a method that examines the acoustic properties of speech, including pitch variation, micro-tremors, and vocal cord irregularities, to infer emotional stress, which is sometimes interpreted as an indicator of deception
The underlying premise is that when a person lies or anticipates scrutiny (Emphasis mine), the autonomic nervous system triggers involuntary physiological changes, affecting the muscles controlling the voice.
VSA systems, such as the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), record these vocal signals and display patterns for an examiner to interpret, often comparing responses to control questions versus critical questions"
Since Oswald had no reason to believe his statements were being electronically scrutinized, there would have been nothing to induce stress.
You must know this is both misleading and irrelevant. That agent's paraffin cast was not subjected to the super-sensitive NAA test, and he was not part of the control test that the FBI conducted to determine the accuracy of the Oakridge NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast.
So you have no way of knowing whether the FBI agent would have tested positive had he been given the more stringent tests. As is your standard, you simply assume what you cannot prove.
The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found the NAA test to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces.
The NAA test did find the presence of both barium and antimony on Oswald's cheek cast. From Appendix 10 of the WCR
"The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and antimony were present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on the inside surface."
So while Oswald's NAA testing was positive for barium and antimony, the WC put no significance on the test proving Oswald did or did not fire a rifle since such tests can produce false positives.
Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).
So did Oswald's NAA test.
I pointed out these facts to you quite recently. Did you just forget them?
Apparently, you've never read the WCR section on paraffin testing.
This kind of deception and omission is why you have no credibility. People who read our previous exchanges on this issue are going to wonder how you could make these statements with a straight face.
You are the last person on this forum who should be casting aspersions on other people's credibility with the silly things you have claimed are "proof".
Are you ever going to explain why the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, using the alleged murder weapon itself, utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up?
Why should I explain something that didn't duplicate the conditions Oswald killed JFK from.
Oh my! Can you retroactively read minds or something? How do you know Oswald had a motive? What is your basis for adamantly declaring "Oswald had a motive"? Answer: Your circular reasoning that since you believe Oswald shot JFK, you infer that he therefore must have had a motive.
How do I know Oswald had a motive? His actions speak to that. He made a special trip on Thursday to fetch his rifle. He had made a bag to conceal that rifle when he went to work on Friday morning. He found a secluded spot in the TSBD and stacked boxes by the window to form a rifle rest. All of the actions indicate malice aforethought. That means he had a motive for what he did, even if that motive is unknown.
Ask any detective or prosecutor about the importance of establishing a motive in any complex or strongly contested case.
Important is not the same as necessary. Oswald would have easily been convicted at trial even without his motive ever being established.
This is juvenile silliness. You are embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical illogic. Even Lance Payette has taken you to task for this silly argument.
Lance seems to want to argue for the sake of arguing. When responding to a CT, he wears his LN cap. When responding to an LN, he takes the CT position. He's here just to play word games. He never gave a cogent answer to this conundrum and apparently you don't have one either. You call it a silly argument, yet you cannot point why it is silly.
How does your backward theorizing explain the Lopez-Hardway evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City? How does it explain Silvia Odio's account, which was corroborated by her sister Annie?
I don't have to explain things that are not established facts.
So why do you suppose Dallas police chief Jesse Curry told the Dallas Morning News in November 1969 that there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window? Let's read his statement again:
We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.
I notice you said nothing about Curry's statement.
I never thought Curry was the sharpest knife in the drawer. If the forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt didn't convince him, he couldn't have been too bright. The other possibility is that he was still bitter that the FBI had taken over the case from his department and he was resentful. His bitterness came through when he made the announcement that the FBI was taking charge. It would have been the biggest case he ever handled as police chief and it was taken from him.
Why did Norman Mailer state that he believed he could have gotten Oswald acquitted if he had been Oswald's lawyer in a trial?
Do you seriously consider that evidence of Oswald's innocence? Norman Mailer had a reputation as a blowhard. This is a fine example.
I also notice you said nothing about the fact that the belated DPD claim that Oswald's palmprint had been found on the barrel of the rifle was so suspicious that even the WC doubted the palmprint's origin.
One more claim you have made that isn't true. For someone who is so critical of the WCR, you seem to be quite ignorant of what it has to say. Here is what it said about the palmprint found on the barrel of Oswald's rifle, from Chapter 4, page 123, continuing on to page 124..
"On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 52 "Lifting" a print involves the use of adhesive material to remove the fingerprint powder which adheres to the original print. In this way the powdered impression is actually removed from the object.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. 54 Day, on the other hand, believed that sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel, because he did not release the lifted print until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI.55 The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." 56 The print's positive identity as having been lifted from the rifle was confirmed by FBI Laboratory tests which established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. 57
Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint
Page 124
expert.60 In the opinion of these experts, it was not possible to estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the rifle and the date of the lift.61
Experts testifying before the Commission agreed that palmprints are as unique as fingerprints for purposes of establishing identification.62 Oswald's palmprint on the underside of the barrel demonstrates that he handled the rifle when it was disassembled. A palmprint could not be placed on this portion of the rifle, when assembled, because the wooden foregrip covers the barrel at this point.63 The print is additional proof that the rifle was in Oswald's possession."
Nowhere does the WCR express doubt about the authenticity of the palm print.
It has occurred to me that many of the points you raised were addressed by the WCR before anybody raised their objections. That's why I question whether you have much knowledge at all about what is in the WCR. You and your CT cohorts have raised and repeated so many red herring objections to the WCR over the years that I don't think most of you can discern fact from fiction anymore.
-
No.11 reason: the 24” bag (give or take a couple of inches) as Buell W. Frazier described the way he saw Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit and in the cupped palm of his hand.
When did Frazier measure the bag?
No.12 reason: per BW Frazier, Oswald was wearing the GRAY jacket that Friday morning. Oswald had only 2 jackets, a gray jacket and a blue jacket. Oswald left TSBD wearing no jacket according to John Corbett because he believes Bledsoe saw Oswald on McWatters bus wearing only the brown shirt with a hole in the sleeve. Ok, if that is true then how does Oswald’s gray jacket which he must have left in the TSBD get to under a car in a parking lot to be pointed out by some unnamed person? Oswald leaving the boarding house zipping up a jacket (per Earlene Roberts), could therefore only be the BLUE jacket. The description of the Tippit shooters “tan” jacket does not fit the BLUE jacket Oswald had on when he left the boarding house. If Oswald discarded this blue jacket before he was seen by Brewer, how does that BLUE jacket wind up being found in the TSBD in the Domino room? And Who found BLUE jacket anyway?
Why do you think Frazier would even take note of, much less remember how long Oswald's bag was or which jacket he wore that morning. In my entire time I was in the workforce, it would have been very seldom I would have made a mental note of what my co-workers were wearing or would have been able to tell you what they were wearing if you asked me the next day. I'll never understand why so many people place so much faith in witnesses' ability to remember mundane details of things they would have no reason to make note of at the time they observed them.
-
Michael,
What do you make of the observation made during the autopsy that the bullet that entered the President's back (several inches below the shoulder and to the right of the spine) had hit JFK at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees
This comes from the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. It is not in the autopsy report. According to Sibert and O'Neill, at one point Humes voiced the view that the back-wound bullet hit at a 45-60-degree downward angle. Obviously, either Humes was unbelievably incompetent or he could not have been looking at the back wound seen in the autopsy photo of the wound. The wound in the autopsy photo has an abrasion ring around it that is wider on the bottom half than on the top half, proving an upward trajectory at the time of impact, as the HSCA FPP correctly noted:
A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)
Dr. Spitz had already made the same point, in writing, four years earlier in his report to the Rockefeller Commission:
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
Could Humes have been so utterly incompetent as not to recognize that an abrasion ring that is wider on the bottom than on the top proves the bullet struck at an upward angle? I don't think Humes was that incompetent. Finck surely recognized what the abrasion ring indicated. Yet, not surprisingly, this crucial information never made it into the autopsy report, just as the 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail did not make it into the autopsy report.
For all the covering up that the FPP did (read: what Baden and Weston led them to cover up), the FPP members deserve enormous credit for admitting that the bullet hit at an upward angle. My guess is that Baden would have preferred not to acknowledge this devastating fact, but Dr. Wecht was on the panel and he easily recognized what the abrasion collar meant, and, surprisingly, Dr. Spitz, who was ardently pro-WC, backed up Wecht on this crucial point. The other FPP members recognized the obvious implication of the abrasion collar as well, and so this was one of the FPP's unanimous findings. This was something Baden could not keep out of the record.
Furthermore, Baden acknowledged -- indeed, demonstrated -- that the only way to make the back wound's upward trajectory line up with the sixth-floor window was to assume that Kennedy was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward at the moment of impact. On one occasion, Baden leaned far forward for the cameras to demonstrate the point. He almost looked like he was doubled over.
and did not penetrate more than an inch or so?
Yes, this was positively established with the ARRB materials and other disclosures in the 1990s. One of the med-techs, James Jenkins, had already revealed this in the 1970s in a recorded interview, noting that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. This was corroborated in the materials disclosed in the 1990s.
We now know that the pathologists even removed the chest organs so they could have a clear view of where the probe was going, and they saw that it only went a few inches and ended at the lining of the chest cavity. That's why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.
Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”! He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body:
A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest. They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (Interview transcript, p. 10)
In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476).
In James Jenkins' 8/29/1977 HSCA interview, he said that Dr. Humes found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).
In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity (pleura):
Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.
Again, this is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. They knew the back wound had no exit point.
Did this bullet fall out and became CE 399? The ammo was presumably as ancient as the rifle, like more than 20 years old, and perhaps the bullet wasn't discharged properly?
Yes, a squib bullet is an entirely plausible, reasonable explanation. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others. Another possible explanation is that a fragment from a bullet that hit the pavement behind the limo caused the back wound.
No, that bullet wasn't CE 399. As SBT believers used to love to point out, what damage there is on CE 399 proves that the bullet hit an object while traveling sideways. SBT believers, even in this forum, used to love to point this out because they were going with Lattimer's and Myers' bogus enlarged size for Connally's back wound, because they didn't know that the wound track through Connally was remarkably narrow, and because they assumed the magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot as it allegedly exited his throat.
What is your theory about the location of the assassin to the rear of JFK?
I definitely believe that a gunman was firing at JFK from the rear, quite possibly two gunmen. There is no credible doubt that a man with a rifle was seen in the sixth-floor window.
-
This comes from the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. It is not in the autopsy report. According to Sibert and O'Neill, at one point Humes voiced the view that the back-wound bullet hit at a 45-60-degree downward angle. Obviously, either Humes was unbelievably incompetent or he could not have been looking at the back wound seen in the autopsy photo of the wound. The wound in the autopsy photo has an abrasion ring around it that is wider on the bottom half than on the top half, proving an upward trajectory at the time of impact, as the HSCA FPP correctly noted:
A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)
Dr. Spitz had already made the same point, in writing, four years earlier in his report to the Rockefeller Commission:
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
Could Humes have been so utterly incompetent as not to recognize that an abrasion ring that is wider on the bottom than on the top proves the bullet struck at an upward angle? I don't think Humes was that incompetent. Finck surely recognized what the abrasion ring indicated. Yet, not surprisingly, this crucial information never made it into the autopsy report, just as the 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail did not make it into the autopsy report.
Humes was not a forensic pathologist so his lack of knowledge about what an abrasion ring indicates is perfectly understandable. He was asked to perform a task he was not adequately trained for. The mistake was failing to have the autopsy performed by an experienced forensic medical examiner. I don't know who made that call but apparently they deferred to Jackie's choice of having he autopsy performed at a Naval facility. I can't imagine any other widow of a homicide victim being offered such a choice but that is what happened. It was a silly mistake but one we can't undo and will just have to live with the results.
-
No.11 reason: the 24” bag (give or take a couple of inches) as Buell W. Frazier described the way he saw Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit and in the cupped palm of his hand.
Yes, this is a serious problem for the case against Oswald.
Two people saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, Jack Dougherty and Buell Wesley Frazier. Dougherty said Oswald's hands were empty when he saw Oswald enter the building. Frazier said Oswald came into the TSBD carrying a brown bag with one end cupped in his palm and the other end tucked under his armpit.
The alleged murder rifle was 35 inches long when disassembled. If the package contained the rifle, Oswald could not have carried the package in the manner described by Frazier. The package would have extended well above his armpit, making it impossible to carry it with one end in his hand the other end under his armpit.
Even more problematic for the case against Oswald is the length of the package/bag that Frazier saw Oswald bring to work that morning. Frazier told the Warren Commission (WC) that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about 2 feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store." On December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents measured the distance between that spot and the door and found it was 27 inches. Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who also saw the bag, also said it was 27 inches long.
Thus, according to both Frazier and his sister, the bag was at least 8 inches shorter than the disassembled Carcano rifle. In addition, in order for Oswald to have carried the package in the manner Frazier described, Oswald's height and arm length indicate the bag would have needed to be no more than 24 inches long.
In response to this dilemma, the WC reflexively said that both Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the length of the bag. Posner pounces on Frazier's admission that he was not absolutely certain about the length of the bag, but he ignores the fact that Frazier had no doubt about how Oswald carried the bag, and he dismisses the fact that Frazier's sister said the bag was right around 27 inches long.
The WC claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI lab report written shortly after the assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (emphasis added).
But this report was later "corrected," and the "corrected version" said, "This paper was examined and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along to the Warren Commission." Yeah, uh-huh. You bet.
The brown paper bag did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the alleged murder weapon was described as well oiled. Anyone who has handled a rifle after it's been lubricated/oiled knows you have to be careful not to let the lubed part of the rifle touch your clothes or else you'll get oil on your clothes.
No.12 reason: per BW Frazier, Oswald was wearing the GRAY jacket that Friday morning. Oswald had only 2 jackets, a gray jacket and a blue jacket. Oswald left TSBD wearing no jacket according to John Corbett because he believes Bledsoe saw Oswald on McWatters bus wearing only the brown shirt with a hole in the sleeve. Ok, if that is true then how does Oswald’s gray jacket which he must have left in the TSBD get to under a car in a parking lot to be pointed out by some unnamed person? Oswald leaving the boarding house zipping up a jacket (per Earlene Roberts), could therefore only be the BLUE jacket. The description of the Tippit shooters “tan” jacket does not fit the BLUE jacket Oswald had on when he left the boarding house. If Oswald discarded this blue jacket before he was seen by Brewer, how does that BLUE jacket wind up being found in the TSBD in the Domino room? And Who found BLUE jacket anyway?
Yes, the jacket evidence is a ball of confusion for the case against Oswald.
Oswald's shirt is equally problematic for the WC's case. Four of the five witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor window said the man was wearing a "light-colored" regular shirt or jacket; the remaining witness said it was either a T-shirt or a regular shirt. This does not even come close to matching the description of the brown, rust-colored shirt that Oswald wore to work that day, and Oswald was seen in that rust-colored shirt less than 90 seconds after the shooting.
And then there are the shirt fibers that were "found" on the Carcano. The fibers were reportedly found in the crevice between the rifle's butt plate and its wooden stock. The WC noted that these fibers were found to match the shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.
However, Oswald was not wearing that shirt at the Book Depository. The DPD or the FBI must have rubbed the butt of the Carcano against the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater, not realizing it was not the same shirt he had worn to work that day. Not a single fiber from the shirt that Oswald wore to work was found on the Italian rifle, nor were any fibers from his T-shirt found on the rifle.
The WC erroneously claimed that Oswald did not change shirts after the shooting. However, the facts indicate otherwise. Officer Marrion Baker noted that Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the police station than the shirt he was wearing when Baker saw him on the second floor 75-90 seconds after the shooting. Oswald stated during his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as "reddish." A rust-colored brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald's apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting.
-
Yes, this is a serious problem for the case against Oswald.
Two people saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, Jack Dougherty and Buell Wesley Frazier. Dougherty said Oswald's hands were empty when he saw Oswald enter the building. Frazier said Oswald came into the TSBD carrying a brown bag with one end cupped in his palm and the other end tucked under his armpit.
This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't trust witnesses to remember mundane details when they had no reason to make note of them at the time they observed them. These two witnesses give mutually exclusive versions of Oswald entering the building and yet you offer both as evidence of Oswald's innocence.
The alleged murder rifle was 35 inches long when disassembled. If the package contained the rifle, Oswald could not have carried the package in the manner described by Frazier. The package would have extended well above his armpit, making it impossible to carry it with one end in his hand the other end under his armpit.
That would be a problem if Frazier accurately remembered how Oswald carried the package. You have offered nothing that establishes he did.
Even more problematic for the case against Oswald is the length of the package/bag that Frazier saw Oswald bring to work that morning. Frazier told the Warren Commission (WC) that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about 2 feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store." On December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents measured the distance between that spot and the door and found it was 27 inches. Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who also saw the bag, also said it was 27 inches long.
I always chuckle when someone offers a witness' recollection as if it is an established fact. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable especially when trying to recall detains that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time. When a witness tells us something, the only proper reaction should be, "Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not".
Most witnesses don't deliberately lie nor do they have perfect recall. Typically they remember bits and pieces of an event and the minds fill in the blanks, usually inaccurately.
Any eyewitness account should be compared to the body of evidence as a whole to determine how reliable it is. In this case, Frazier told us Oswald carried the bag with the bottom cupped in his hand with the other end tucked under his arm. A bag was found next to the sniper's nest with Oswald's palm print on it just where it would be if he cupped it in his hand. The bag measured 40 inches long which means either it was not fully extended when Oswald carried it or Frazier was wrong about the bag being tucked under Oswald's arm. Since the bag contained fibers matching the blanket Oswald store his rifle in, that indicates Oswald had placed the rifle in the bag and it would be too long to carry tucked in his arm. Only someone desperate to argue for Oswald's innocence would conclude Frazier accurately remembered how Oswald carried the bag.
Thus, according to both Frazier and his sister, the bag was at least 8 inches shorter than the disassembled Carcano rifle. In addition, in order for Oswald to have carried the package in the manner Frazier described, Oswald's height and arm length indicate the bag would have needed to be no more than 24 inches long.
So what. Neither measured the bag and neither of them had any reason to estimate its length AT THE TIME THEY OBSERVED IT.
In response to this dilemma, the WC reflexively said that both Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the length of the bag. Posner pounces on Frazier's admission that he was not absolutely certain about the length of the bag, but he ignores the fact that Frazier had no doubt about how Oswald carried the bag, and he dismisses the fact that Frazier's sister said the bag was right around 27 inches long.
A perfectly logical conclusion given that the bag found by the sniper's nest MEASURED 40 inches long.
The WC claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI lab report written shortly after the assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (emphasis added).
But this report was later "corrected," and the "corrected version" said, "This paper was examined and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along to the Warren Commission." Yeah, uh-huh. You bet.
I would gladly bet.
The brown paper bag did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the alleged murder weapon was described as well oiled. Anyone who has handled a rifle after it's been lubricated/oiled knows you have to be careful not to let the lubed part of the rifle touch your clothes or else you'll get oil on your clothes.
The mechanism was well oiled.
Yes, the jacket evidence is a ball of confusion for the case against Oswald.
Because of a confused witness.
Oswald's shirt is equally problematic for the WC's case. Four of the five witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor window said the man was wearing a "light-colored" regular shirt or jacket; the remaining witness said it was either a T-shirt or a regular shirt. This does not even come close to matching the description of the brown, rust-colored shirt that Oswald wore to work that day, and Oswald was seen in that rust-colored shirt less than 90 seconds after the shooting.
So you have just illustrated how witnesses don't get details right. We have conflicting witnesses describing the same shirt in different ways. This speaks to the reliability of witnesses.
And then there are the shirt fibers that were "found" on the Carcano. The fibers were reportedly found in the crevice between the rifle's butt plate and its wooden stock. The WC noted that these fibers were found to match the shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.
However, Oswald was not wearing that shirt at the Book Depository. The DPD or the FBI must have rubbed the butt of the Carcano against the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater, not realizing it was not the same shirt he had worn to work that day. Not a single fiber from the shirt that Oswald wore to work was found on the Italian rifle, nor were any fibers from his T-shirt found on the rifle.
I like how you cherry evidence to make your case. You ignore the fact that Mary Bledsoe, his former landlady, saw Oswald on McWatters bus and said he was wearing a shirt with a hole in the elbow. The shirt Oswald was arrested in had a hole in the elbow and that is the shirt that matched the fibers found on the butt plate.
The WC erroneously claimed that Oswald did not change shirts after the shooting.
No, the error is in your FUBAR figuring. As long as you have been analyzing the evidence in this case, it's amazing how bad you are at it.
However, the facts indicate otherwise. Officer Marrion Baker noted that Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the police station than the shirt he was wearing when Baker saw him on the second floor 75-90 seconds after the shooting. Oswald stated during his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as "reddish." A rust-colored brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald's apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting.
Well if Oswald said it, then it must be true. What reason would he have to lie?
-
MG: 1. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
The ammo that hit Kennedy's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments (practically particles) and a few larger fragments, deposited at least three fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and left two fragments in the very front of the skull near the right orbit. Oswald allegedly used FMJ bullets, but FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner.
JC: An amazingly stupid claim given that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo that had two pieces which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle.
I should mention that you made this same argument in the thread "Appreciating the Research of Howard Donahue," and that I answered it. But, as usual, you have repeated this argument and ignored my previous reply to it. Just for everyone's information, here's my previous reply to this argument:
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.
I was referring to the following point that Donahue made and that I discussed in the OP for the Donahue thread:
MG: -- 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.
But, you've ignored all of this information and simply repeated your invalid, evasive argument. Most readers would probably not know this if I didn't point it out. You pull this stunt all the time, literally over and over.
You still have yet to explain the fact that an FMJ bullet would never, ever, ever produce the kind bullet fragmentation that we see on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Those x-rays show a "lead snowstorm" of over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, which alone automatically rules out FMJ ammo, as world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio pointed out:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Again, for at least the sixth time in the last two months, did you catch that? (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
The JFK autopsy skull x-rays also show two isolated fragments very near the right orbit: the 3 x 1 mm and the 7 x 2 mm fragments that Humes removed during the autopsy. There is no other particle or fragment anywhere near those two fragments on the extant skull x-rays. How did they get there? Your scenario has no way to explain those two fragments.
As I've discussed previously, the largest of the tiny fragments in the right-frontal fragment cluster are at the left end of the cluster on the right lateral skull x-ray, clear proof, according to the laws of physics and ballistics, that the fragments came from a bullet that struck in the front, as a number of experts have noted. The heavier fragments in a fragment trail will travel the farthest from the point of entry, while the lighter fragments will come to a halt closer to the entry point.
In addition, the skull x-rays show a very thin genuine 6.3 mm x 2.5 mm fragment embedded in the rear outer table of the skull and inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. This is undoubtedly the rear head fragment mentioned by Sibert and O'Neill in their report. Sibert and O'Neill said this fragment was "the next largest fragment" (the largest fragment was the 7 x 2 mm fragment), and that it was "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone" (p. 3).
On the AP x-ray, this fragment is 1 cm below the phantom cowlick entry site and over 3 inches above the EOP entry site. The only rational, scientific explanation for this fragment is that it is a ricochet fragment from the bullet that struck the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting.
Given the serious conflicts in the reports regarding bullet fragments and bullets found in the limousine, you are on shaky ground from the outset to be citing CE 567 and CE 569. Furthermore, (1) forensic science tells us that those two fragments could not have come from the ammo that hit JFK's skull; (2) there is no evidence that those fragments transited JFK's skull; and (3) the claim that NAA testing proved that CE 567 and the two fragments from JFK's brain came from the same ammo was exploded years ago.
"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives," by Dr. Erik Randich and Dr. Patrick Grant (https://share.google/JWRl6SKnOlAOx73eF)
"Ballistics and Baloney: Lucien Haag and the JFK Assassination," by Martin Hay. (https://share.google/VHNxU9ZRZo4Ejf29l)
This should not be surprising, since we know from forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, much less while also depositing fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact and while also magically depositing two fragments at the opposite end of the skull with no other fragments deposited anywhere near them.
Sooner or later, you and other WC true believers are going to have to face the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, that Oswald's alleged ammo could not possibly have produced the bullet fragmentation seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
-
In a radio interview 5 years ago Frazier said an un-named Depository employee told him a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple were seen on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table, where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating alone, after the assassination...That un-named employee was probably Truly...The fact Frazier is afraid to say who it was tells you a lot about how much evidence Frazier was made to hide...That partly-eaten sandwich and apple had to be seen by Baker & Truly when they ducked in to confront Oswald and was also disappeared from their testimonies...Baker broke-off and started back up the stairs without saying a word to Oswald because he had seen the partly-eaten lunch on the table and realized Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination like he told the 3pm Interrogation...
This true scenario is why the 3pm Interrogation ended up taking no notes in order to get rid of this exculpatory evidence...It is also why Oswald had to be gotten rid of in the Dallas Police Station basement...It was just a matter of time before Oswald would have had to answer for his being in that Lunch Room during the assassination...In the 1990's Hosty told Nigel Turner that Oswald had told them he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination...
The new moderators at The Education Forum are Prayer Man-only...That new moderation reich makes it a ban-able offense to even point that out...
-
It's truly amazing the conclusions the CTs can arrive at from something as innocuous as a cheese sandwich and an apple. Meanwhile they are perfectly willing to dismiss all rock solid evidence of Oswald's guilt, the kind of evidence that is routinely used to prosecute criminals in other cases, fingerprints, ballistics, medical evidence, fiber evidence, etc.
-
I should mention that you made this same argument in the thread "Appreciating the Research of Howard Donahue," and that I answered it. But, as usual, you have repeated this argument and ignored my previous reply to it. Just for everyone's information, here's my previous reply to this argument:
I was referring to the following point that Donahue made and that I discussed in the OP for the Donahue thread:
But, you've ignored all of this information and simply repeated your invalid, evasive argument. Most readers would probably not know this if I didn't point it out. You pull this stunt all the time, literally over and over.
Your answer made no more sense the second time you gave it than the first time.
You still have yet to explain the fact that an FMJ bullet would never, ever, ever produce the kind bullet fragmentation that we see on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. {/quote]
I don't need to explain things that are based on your false premises.
Those x-rays show a "lead snowstorm" of over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, which alone automatically rules out FMJ ammo, as world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio pointed out:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Again, for at least the sixth time in the last two months, did you catch that? (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
The JFK autopsy skull x-rays also show two isolated fragments very near the right orbit: the 3 x 1 mm and the 7 x 2 mm fragments that Humes removed during the autopsy. There is no other particle or fragment anywhere near those two fragments on the extant skull x-rays. How did they get there? Your scenario has no way to explain those two fragments.
Unlike you, I am smart enough not to think my analysis of the medical evidence based on a few photos and x-rays that have been made public should trump the opinions of the original autopsy team which had the body in front of them or the FPP which had access to all the original photos and x-rays. I'm the guy who trusts the opinions of people who actually know their Helicopter :). You're the other guy.
As I've discussed previously, the largest of the tiny fragments in the right-frontal fragment cluster are at the left end of the cluster on the right lateral skull x-ray, clear proof, according to the laws of physics and ballistics, that the fragments came from a bullet that struck in the front, as a number of experts have noted. The heavier fragments in a fragment trail will travel the farthest from the point of entry, while the lighter fragments will come to a halt closer to the entry point.
In addition, the skull x-rays show a very thin genuine 6.3 mm x 2.5 mm fragment embedded in the rear outer table of the skull and inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. This is undoubtedly the rear head fragment mentioned by Sibert and O'Neill in their report. Sibert and O'Neill said this fragment was "the next largest fragment" (the largest fragment was the 7 x 2 mm fragment), and that it was "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone" (p. 3).
On the AP x-ray, this fragment is 1 cm below the phantom cowlick entry site and over 3 inches above the EOP entry site. The only rational, scientific explanation for this fragment is that it is a ricochet fragment from the bullet that struck the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting.
Given the serious conflicts in the reports regarding bullet fragments and bullets found in the limousine, you are on shaky ground from the outset to be citing CE 567 and CE 569. Furthermore, (1) forensic science tells us that those two fragments could not have come from the ammo that hit JFK's skull; (2) there is no evidence that those fragments transited JFK's skull; and (3) the claim that NAA testing proved that CE 567 and the two fragments from JFK's brain came from the same ammo was exploded years ago.
"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives," by Dr. Erik Randich and Dr. Patrick Grant (https://share.google/JWRl6SKnOlAOx73eF)
"Ballistics and Baloney: Lucien Haag and the JFK Assassination," by Martin Hay. (https://share.google/VHNxU9ZRZo4Ejf29l)
This should not be surprising, since we know from forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, much less while also depositing fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact and while also magically depositing two fragments at the opposite end of the skull with no other fragments deposited anywhere near them.
Sooner or later, you and other WC true believers are going to have to face the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, that Oswald's alleged ammo could not possibly have produced the bullet fragmentation seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
I was going to say that sooner or later you're going to have to face the fact that the only bullets recovered from the shooting were 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullets, but then I remembered who I was replying to and realized it is unlikely you will ever deal with the realities of the situation. No other bullets or fragments of bullets were found in the body or in the limo.
-
It's truly amazing the conclusions the CTs can arrive at from something as innocuous as a cheese sandwich and an apple. Meanwhile they are perfectly willing to dismiss all rock solid evidence of Oswald's guilt, the kind of evidence that is routinely used to prosecute criminals in other cases, fingerprints, ballistics, medical evidence, fiber evidence, etc.
In his Commission testimony Captain Will Fritz was not going to let yankee federal commission members make a good Texan lie so when Commission lawyer Ball asked Fritz where Oswald said he was during the assassination Fritz responded with the truth...He told Ball that Oswald told him he was eating a cheese sandwich and apple in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...That cheese sandwich and apple was Oswald's description, not Fritz's...Ball went in to panic mode and guided Fritz back to the official story, but not before Fritz had gotten the full truth out that Oswald was eating a cheese sandwich and apple in the same 2nd Floor Lunch Room that Carolyn Arnold saw him in...That is the same cheese sandwich and apple that Frazier is talking about that the un-named employee said was on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination...And if it was on the table after the assassination then it had to be right there on the table when Truly & Baker confronted Oswald in that same Lunch Room...The Education Forum calls itself a research forum but it seems to be more interested in writing overbearing rules than actually discussing case-cracking solving of the case like this...
As to the evidence that was collected against Oswald, that was a combination of defrauded evidence and that evidence which occurs when an Intelligence agent is cooperating with his being framed...
-
No.11 reason: the 24” bag (give or take a couple of inches) as Buell W. Frazier described the way he saw Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit and in the cupped palm of his hand.
No.12 reason: per BW Frazier, Oswald was wearing the GRAY jacket that Friday morning. Oswald had only 2 jackets, a gray jacket and a blue jacket. Oswald left TSBD wearing no jacket according to John Corbett because he believes Bledsoe saw Oswald on McWatters bus wearing only the brown shirt with a hole in the sleeve. Ok, if that is true then how does Oswald’s gray jacket which he must have left in the TSBD get to under a car in a parking lot to be pointed out by some unnamed person? Oswald leaving the boarding house zipping up a jacket (per Earlene Roberts), could therefore only be the BLUE jacket. The description of the Tippit shooters “tan” jacket does not fit the BLUE jacket Oswald had on when he left the boarding house. If Oswald discarded this blue jacket before he was seen by Brewer, how does that BLUE jacket wind up being found in the TSBD in the Domino room? And Who found BLUE jacket anyway?
In October of 1964, Frazier acknowledged that the rifle was in the bag when he signed a notarized affidavit stating that his car is the car which transported the weapon that morning.
-
1. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
The ammo that hit Kennedy's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments (practically particles) and a few larger fragments, deposited at least three fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and left two fragments in the very front of the skull near the right orbit. Oswald allegedly used FMJ bullets, but FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner.
This is simply nonsense; Kookspeak.
Full metal jacketed bullets can indeed fragment when striking a skull while traveling at full velocity.
I'm not sure where you get your mistaken info from but you better check again.
Stop spewing misinformation.
-
2. Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it.
There are literally no "eyewitness accounts" indicating Oswald was not on the sixth floor at 12:30.
-
Nobody who thinks Anthony Summers is a "scholar" is somebody who should be taken seriously.
Yikes, "is our children learning?" You really should learn to speak English at a high-school level before you try to question anyone's credibility.
If MTG considers somebody a scholar, it's a good bet that person is a bozo.
If you can't even speak English at a high-school level, it's a good bet you have no business passing judgment on who qualifies as a scholar.
No, I didn't bother to read through most of the thread. Why? Did you backpedal?
No, I documented the fact that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking bone.
The bottom line is that you stated that "FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner" as you were describing a specific manner in which the bullet which struck Kennedy in the head fragmented. I am telling you that what you are saying is simply not true.
Is this some kind of joke? You said this in response to my quoting of world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observation that if an x-ray shows dozens of tiny fragments, a "lead snowstorm," this rules out FMJ ammo, and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking bone, the fragments will be "few" in number. Did you miss that? Let's read it again:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
You should now understand (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Full metal jacketed bullets can indeed fragment in ANY specific manner when traveling at full velocity and striking a skull.
Uh, no, they cannot. Go back and re-read DiMaio's statements quoted above. I'll wait. . . . Still waiting. . . . Okay, that's long enough. Are we clear now?
For your additional education, I quote Dr. Cyril Wecht, a famous forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:
It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (Mortal Error, p. 231)
I defy you to cite a single forensic source that says that FMJ bullets will ever shatter into dozens of tiny pieces after striking bone, regardless of their velocity. I'll save you some time: there aren't any such sources.
Never mind that your alleged FMJ bullet not only supposedly shattered into dozens of tiny fragments but also allegedly did this while supposedly "shearing off" a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry and while also supposedly depositing two isolated fragments at the opposite end of the skull. Never mind that. Just find me one forensic source that says an FMJ bullet will ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking skull bone. Again, I'll save you some time: no such sources exist.
"Full velocity"? What is that? There's no such thing as a "full-velocity" rifle or "full velocity" ammo. Is "full velocity" your evasive synonym for "high velocity," since I proved to you that the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle? Because you seem to need things repeated, let's read once again what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC's about the rifle's velocity:
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. . . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
Yet, a whole bunch of experts who have examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, including the Clark Panel, have concluded they show damage caused by ammo that was moving at a high velocity.
The Clark Panel said, "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet traveling at high velocity" (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ).
The Rockefeller Commission's medical panel concurred with the Clark Panel's conclusion about the velocity of the ammo that hit the head (see the medical panel's report in Rockefeller Commission Report, pp. 258-261). BTW, just FYI, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel consisted of Drs. Werner Spitz, Fred Hodges, Alfred Olivier, and Richard Lindenberg, and LTC Robert R. McMeekin, chief of aerospace pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Dr. Gerald McDonnel, one of the radiology experts consulted by the HSCA FPP, concluded that the bullet that hit the back of JFK's skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218). Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains, far too heavy.
So you have your alleged lone gunman firing the wrong kind of rifle (a low-velocity rifle, not a high-velocity rifle), using the wrong kind of ammo (FMJ ammo), and using the wrong kind of ammo that was also too heavy (ammo that was at least 38.6 grains too heavy to qualify as low-mass ammo, or at least 31% heavier than the heaviest low-mass ammo). Trifecta!
-
I'm guessing that you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread before you posted your reply. I also gather that your research into forensic and ballistics evidence in the JFK case has been rather insufficient.
You're the one "spewing misinformation." Again, you appear to have posted this gaffe without reading the rest of the thread, but even then you should have known better than to make such an erroneous claim.
One, no FMJ bullet would never, ever, ever produce the kind bullet fragmentation that we see on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Those x-rays show a "lead snowstorm" of over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, which alone automatically rules out FMJ ammo, as world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio pointed out:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Are we clear? Let's review: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Two, the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle. I quote none other than FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, who explained this to the Warren Commission:
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
I'm guessing that you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread before you posted your reply. I also gather that your research into forensic and ballistics evidence in the JFK case has been rather insufficient.
No, I didn't bother to read through most of the thread. Why? Did you backpedal?
The bottom line is that you stated that "FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner" as you were describing a specific manner in which the bullet which struck Kennedy in the head fragmented. I am telling you that what you are saying is simply not true.
Full metal jacketed bullets can indeed fragment in ANY specific manner when traveling at full velocity and striking a skull.
-
I'm guessing that you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread before you posted your reply. I also gather that your research into forensic and ballistics evidence in the JFK case has been rather insufficient.
You're the one "spewing misinformation." Again, you appear to have posted this gaffe without reading the rest of the thread, but even then you should have known better than to make such an erroneous claim.
One, no FMJ bullet would never, ever, ever produce the kind bullet fragmentation that we see on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Those x-rays show a "lead snowstorm" of over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, which alone automatically rules out FMJ ammo, as world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio pointed out:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Are we clear? Let's review: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Two, the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle. I quote none other than FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, who explained this to the Warren Commission:
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
Did you ever ask yourself a simple question. How much first hand experience do you think Vincent Di Maio had with FMJ rifle ammo striking a skull. Most gun homicides are committed with handguns. Homicides with rifles are rare, a very small subset of all gun homicides. FBI stats show that more homicides are committed each year with bare hands and feet than with all rifles combined. Of homicides committed with rifles, an even smaller subset of them are committed using FMJ ammo. Of all rifle homicides committed using FMJ ammo, an even smaller subset are gunshots to the skull using FMJ ammo fired from a rifle. I'm sure most of Vincent Di Maio's experience with homicides using FMJ ammo would be with handgun ammo. Typically, handguns have about half the muzzle velocity of Oswald's Carcano, which had an average muzzle velocity of 2265 fps. Since FMJ bullets fired from a handgun have about half the velocity of Oswald's FMJ bullet, it makes no sense to believe such ammo would shatter to the same degree as those fired from Oswald's Carcano. Given the small sample size of homicides committed with FMJ rifle ammo fired into the victim's skull, it makes the statement that "no FMJ bullet would never, ever, ever produce the kind bullet fragmentation that we see on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays." a highly dubious one.
PS. Are you aware the statement you made which I quoted contains a double negative. Maybe you should remember that next time you want to chastise me for my spelling and grammar errors.
-
Just to add context to my previous post regarding the number of homicides committed with rifles, AI gave the following answer:
Annual Homicides Involving Rifles in the U.S.
In the most recent full FBI dataset available (2024), 401 homicides in the United States were committed with rifles www.opencrime.us. This represents about 1.5% of all firearm homicides in that year, which totaled 23,434 www.opencrime.us.
For comparison, earlier years show a similar small share:
2019: 364 rifle homicides FBI
2018: 305 rifle homicides FBI
2017: 389 rifle homicides FBI
These numbers are far below the dominant role of handguns in U.S. homicides — which accounted for roughly two-thirds of all firearm homicides in 2024 www.opencrime.us. Rifles, while present, are a minor weapon type in the overall homicide landscape.
Key context:
Firearms were used in 85.2% of all U.S. murders in 2024 www.opencrime.us.
Handguns made up the largest single category of firearm homicides, with rifles and shotguns each representing less than 2% of all firearm homicides.
The share of rifle homicides has been relatively stable over the past decade, with slight year-to-year variation.
-
I used my AI app to get information about Dr. Vincent Di Maio's work in regards to the fragmentation of full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets. Here is the result:
[quote on]
Vincent Di Maio on Fragmentation of Full Metal Jacket Ammo in Skull Penetration
Vincent J. M. Di Maio, a renowned forensic pathologist and expert on gunshot wounds, has written extensively on the ballistic behavior of full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets and their interaction with bone, including the skull. In his authoritative work Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Di Maio explains that FMJ bullets are designed to maintain their jacket integrity during flight, but when they encounter bone, the jacket can fragment due to the high pressures and stresses involved.
How FMJ Bullets Fragment in Bone
When an FMJ bullet strikes bone, especially dense bone like the skull, the jacket can deform and break apart. This fragmentation is a result of:
High pressure and velocity from the bullet’s flight.
Bone resistance causing localized stress concentrations.
Jacket material properties — the copper or gilding metal jacket can fracture under impact, especially if the bullet is not perfectly round or if there are imperfections in the jacket layer.
Di Maio notes that fragmentation in bone is more common with FMJ than with pure lead bullets, because the jacket is more rigid and less ductile, making it more prone to cracking under the compressive and shear forces of bone contact ia800508.us.archive.org.
Forensic Pathology Context
In forensic examinations, the pattern of fragmentation can be important for:
Determining the caliber and type of bullet.
Assessing the trajectory and impact point.
Understanding the mechanism of injury in bone and soft tissue.
For skull penetration, fragmentation can lead to multiple entry wounds or bone chips being propelled into surrounding tissue, which can complicate the wound pattern and the pathologist’s reconstruction of the event.
Key Takeaway
According to Di Maio’s forensic ballistics principles, FMJ bullets can fragment in bone, including the skull, due to the combination of high-velocity impact and the rigidity of the jacket. This fragmentation is a documented phenomenon in forensic pathology and can be observed in autopsy findings, though it is not always the primary cause of injury — the bullet’s core and the bone’s reaction are equally important in determining the wound’s characteristics.
If you need a visual or technical reference, Di Maio’s Gunshot Wounds book and his other forensic pathology publications provide detailed diagrams and case-based explanations of bullet fragmentation in bone.
[quote off]
In my previous post, I suggested Di Maio might not have much direct experience with FMJ rifle gunshots to the head. However, since he did write a book about gunshot wounds, it seems probable to me he would have looked at case studies beyond his own experience and would have larger knowledge base than what he acquired through his own work as a forensic medical examiner.
MTG has made several claims about Di Maio's work which I am quite skeptical about. For one, MTG claims Di Maio changed his mind about his earlier work which accepted Oswald was the lone assassin. We only have MTG's word for this since he doesn't actually quote Di Maio rejecting his earlier belief. He goes on to claim that Di Maio said that FMJ bullets would never shatter the way that the bullet that struck JFK's head did. This gets back to a question I raised in my earlier post. Was Di Maio speaking about FMJ rifle ammo or pistol ammo. Due to the vast difference in velocity, this is an important factor. Given MTG's practice of citing people out of context, I am highly skeptical of his claims about Di Maio's conclusions. I will give MTG the opportunity to clarify his claims by answering two simple questions.
1. Can MTG QUOTE Di Maio actually saying that he had abandoned his earlier position that Oswald was the lone assassin?
2. Can MTG provide context that would tell us Di Maio said FMJ rifle ammo would not fragment as shown in the JFK x-rays or was Di Maio speaking specifically of handgun ammo when he made that observation.
I suspect MTG has been giving us his own interpretation of what Di Maio has said on the subject but will be glad to drop my skepticism if he can provide quotes from Di Maio that specifically address the question of Oswald as the lone assassin and that he was speaking specifically of rifle ammo when he made his observations on how a FMJ bullet would fragment after striking a skull.
-
In his Commission testimony Captain Will Fritz was not going to let yankee federal commission members make a good Texan lie so when Commission lawyer Ball asked Fritz where Oswald said he was during the assassination Fritz responded with the truth...He told Ball that Oswald told him he was eating a cheese sandwich and apple in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...That cheese sandwich and apple was Oswald's description, not Fritz's...Ball went in to panic mode and guided Fritz back to the official story, but not before Fritz had gotten the full truth out that Oswald was eating a cheese sandwich and apple in the same 2nd Floor Lunch Room that Carolyn Arnold saw him in...That is the same cheese sandwich and apple that Frazier is talking about that the un-named employee said was on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination...And if it was on the table after the assassination then it had to be right there on the table when Truly & Baker confronted Oswald in that same Lunch Room...The Education Forum calls itself a research forum but it seems to be more interested in writing overbearing rules than actually discussing case-cracking solving of the case like this...
As to the evidence that was collected against Oswald, that was a combination of defrauded evidence and that evidence which occurs when an Intelligence agent is cooperating with his being framed...
British scholar Anthony Summers was impressed with the evidence that indicates Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting, noting, among other things, that Oswald correctly described Junior Jarman and Harold Norman as walking through the first-floor lunchroom at around noon, strongly indicating that he was indeed in that lunchroom at noon. If one wants to argue that Oswald made a lucky guess, such a guess would have been amazingly lucky indeed since 75 people worked in the Book Depository. Says Summers,
Other evidence suggests that Oswald not only declared his intention of going downstairs to lunch, but actually did so. It is evidence which, with disregard for the facts, official inquiries have either probed little or ignored.
When Oswald’s coworkers left the sixth floor for their lunch break around 11:45 a.m., they left behind them an Oswald vocally impatient to come down and join them. Two, Bonnie Ray Williams and Billie Lovelady, remembered Oswald shouting to them as they went down in the elevator, “Guys! How about an elevator?” and adding words to the effect: “Close the gate on the elevator” or “Send one of the elevators back up.” Sometime after this, around noon, Bonnie Ray Williams went back to the sixth floor to eat his own lunch in peace and quiet. Later, his lunch bag, chicken bones, and empty pop bottle were found there to prove it. Williams stayed on the sixth floor until at least 12:15 p.m., perhaps until 12:20. He saw nobody, certainly not Oswald.
Under interrogation, Oswald insisted he had followed his workmates down to eat. He said he ate a snack in the first-floor lunchroom alone, but thought he remembered two black employees walking through the room while he was there. Oswald believed one of them was a colleague known as Junior, and said he would recognize the other man but could not recall his name. He said the second man was short. There were two rooms in the Book Depository where workers had lunch, the “domino room” on the first floor and the lunchroom proper on the second floor.
There was indeed a worker called Junior Jarman, and he spent his lunch break largely in the company of another black man called Harold Norman. Norman, who was indeed short, said later he ate in the domino room between 12:00 and 12:15 p.m., and indeed thought “there was someone else in there” at the time, though he couldn’t remember who. At about 12:15, Jarman walked over to the domino room, and together the two black men left the building for a few minutes. Between 12:20 and 12:25 -- just before the assassination -- they strolled through the first floor once more, on the way upstairs to watch the motorcade from a window. If Oswald was not in fact on the first floor at some stage, it is noteworthy that he described two men -- out of a staff of seventy-five -- who actually were there. This information is nowhere noted in the Warren Report. (Not In Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the JFK Assassination, 2013, pp. 90-91)
As I point out in my article "Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?", since Oswald was seen by Eddie Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:20, but Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor at 12:15 or 12:20.
There is also good evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting. For example, Roy Truly was already heading up the stairs to the third floor when Officer Marrion Baker reached the second-floor landing and saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom or in the hallway leading to the lunchroom. This is a vital fact because it shows that Oswald could not have come down the stairs and gone beyond the hallway door without being seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker. The foyer door to the lunchroom had an automatic closer, and Truly specified that did not see the door close, which means Oswald had already been in the lunchroom a good 5-10 seconds before Truly reached the second-floor landing. To put it another way, if Baker actually saw Oswald beyond the foyer door leading to the lunchroom when he reached the second-floor landing, Oswald could not have gone through that door without being seen by Truly. I discuss this in my article "The Baker-Oswald Encounter: Proof That Oswald Did Not Shoot JFK?"
"Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12wAiq3B9Sc1BfBc7qay2vYswNrcQY_Rt/view)
"The Baker-Oswald Encounter: Proof That Oswald Did Not Shoot JFK?" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view)
-
British scholar Anthony Summers was impressed with the evidence that indicates Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting, noting, among other things, that Oswald correctly described Junior Jarman and Harold Norman as walking through the first-floor lunchroom at around noon, strongly indicating that he was indeed in that lunchroom at noon. If one wants to argue that Oswald made a lucky guess, such a guess would have been amazingly lucky indeed since 75 people worked in the Book Depository. Says Summers,
My discovery of Sarah Stanton seeing Oswald waiting on the 2nd Floor staircase landing for Mrs Reid to clear the lady employees out of the 2nd Floor Lunch Room means that Oswald could have known about Jarman and Norman entering the rear loading dock entrance when he saw or heard them going up the elevator to the 5th Floor...It is possible that Oswald did not like being caught by Stanton and went down to the 1st Floor right after his encounter with Stanton and saw Jarman and Norman at that time, however Oswald definitely went back up to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room that Mrs Reid was clearing out for him because we know Carolyn Arnold saw him there alone eating lunch like Oswald told Hosty...
I don't trust Summers because Summers ignored Earl Golz's discovery that Carolyn Arnold told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...Summers stuck with the FBI's criminal alteration of what Carolyn Arnold told them and cannot be trusted...Summers insisted on 12:15 in the Lobby when Carolyn Arnold herself emphasized that she never said that and that she told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The latter being confirmed by Carolyn Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement that she was allowed to proofread that said 12:25 in plain writing...Not only did FBI alter Carolyn Arnold's statement but they also quoted Sarah Stanton as saying she never saw Oswald that day when the truth was she had a decisive witnessing of Oswald that cracks the case...While calling itself a credible research forum The Education Forum remains dedicated to ignoring this key new witnessing and most important evidence discovery of our generation and vindictively banning its source...
-
I don't trust Summers because Summers ignored Earl Golz's discovery that Carolyn Arnold told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...Summers stuck with the FBI's criminal alteration of what Carolyn Arnold told them and cannot be trusted...Summers insisted on 12:15 in the Lobby when Carolyn Arnold herself emphasized that she never said that and that she told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The latter being confirmed by Carolyn Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement that she was allowed to proofread that said 12:25 in plain writing...Not only did FBI alter Carolyn Arnold's statement but they also quoted Sarah Stanton as saying she never saw Oswald that day when the truth was she had a decisive witnessing of Oswald that cracks the case...While calling itself a credible research forum The Education Forum remains dedicated to ignoring this key new witnessing and most important evidence discovery of our generation and vindictively banning its source...
You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:
In 1963, Carolyn Arnold was secretary to the vice president of the Book Depository.14 An FBI report, omitted from the Warren Commission Report, said Arnold was standing in front of the Depository waiting for the motorcade when she “thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway . . . on the first floor.”
When the author contacted Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that the FBI had misquoted her, came before the author explained to her the importance of Oswald’s whereabouts at given moments. Arnold’s recollection of what she observed was clear -- having spotted Oswald had been her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What she claimed she told the FBI is very different from the Bureau report of her comments.
“About a quarter of an hour before the assassination,” she said in 1978, “I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him, but I recognized him clearly.”
Arnold had some reason to remember having gone into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. She also recalled, in 1978, that this was “about 12:15. It may have been slightly later." (Not In Your Lifetime, pp. 91-92)
-
British scholar Anthony Summers was impressed with the evidence that indicates Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting,
Nobody who thinks Anthony Summers is a "scholar" is somebody who should be taken seriously.
If MTG considers somebody a scholar, it's a good bet that person is a bozo.
-
You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:
In her discussion with Earl Golz Carolyn Arnold insisted she said 12:25...That was reinforced by her March 1964 FBI statement that listed in plain writing "12:25"...
FBI acted criminally and with intent when it criminally altered both Arnold's and Stanton's key witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...
FBI displayed what Jim DiEugenio describes as a "Consciousness Of Guilt"...
-
It is improbable that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom 2 minutes earlier at 12:13
If Oswald is the 6th floor shooter , then there would be about a 2 minute difference between Rowland Arnold spotting Oswald at 12:15 and Carolyn Arnold spotting Oswald at 12:17.
This scenario is kind of crazy though because Oswald panics momentarily after seeing Bonnie Ray Williams on the 6th floor. It upsets Oswald enough that he hid his rifle in the bag again and quickly left the 6th floor to descend 4 flights of stairs and sit down in a booth in the 2nd floor lunchroom by 12:17. Was Oswald at this point abandoning his plan to shoot JFK? It would seem so.
At some point several minutes later, however, (perhaps 12:20) Oswald decided he would go back up to the 6th floor and see if BRW was still there. Oswald took the rifle from the hiding place, carrying it in the bag perhaps just in case BRW suddenly emerged into LOS unexpectedly. Since BRW was on the floor until 12:23, Oswald must have found a hiding place in the NE corner of the 6th floor where he could have a hidden LOS to the elevators and staircase. In this way he would have seen BRW get on the East elevator at 12:23. Oswald then had 2 minutes to walk 100 ft to the SN window, and arrange the 3 boxes with one on the window ledge thus completed by the time the Bronson film started at approx 12:25.
-
In an interview with the Dallas Morning News in November 1969, none other than Dallas police chief Jesse Curry.......
The same Jesse Curry extensively wrote in his book that Lee Harvey Oswald brutally gunned down J. D. Tippit, and if Oswald wasn't on the run from assassinating Kennedy then why the heck would Oswald feel the need to kill a cop in broad daylight, in front of eyewitnesses??
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmLCDm5m/Curry-book-Tippit-killed-by-Oswald.jpg)
JohnM
-
Nobody who thinks Anthony Summers is a "scholar" is somebody who should be taken seriously.
Yikes, "is our children learning?" You really should learn to speak English at a high-school level before you try to question anyone's credibility.
If MTG considers somebody a scholar, it's a good bet that person is a bozo.
If you can't even speak English at a high-school level, it's a good bet you have no business passing judgment on who qualifies as a scholar.
No, I didn't bother to read through most of the thread. Why? Did you backpedal?
No, I documented the fact that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking bone.
The bottom line is that you stated that "FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner" as you were describing a specific manner in which the bullet which struck Kennedy in the head fragmented. I am telling you that what you are saying is simply not true.
Is this some kind of joke? You said this in response to my quoting of world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observation that if an x-ray shows dozens of tiny fragments, a "lead snowstorm," this rules out FMJ ammo, and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking bone, the fragments will be "few" in number. Did you miss that? Let's read it again:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
You should now understand (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Full metal jacketed bullets can indeed fragment in ANY specific manner when traveling at full velocity and striking a skull.
Uh, no, they cannot. Go back and re-read DiMaio's statements quoted above. I'll wait. . . . Still waiting. . . . Okay, that's long enough. Are we clear now?
For your additional education, I quote Dr. Cyril Wecht, a famous forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:
It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (Mortal Error, p. 231)
I defy you to cite a single forensic source that says that FMJ bullets will ever shatter into dozens of tiny pieces after striking bone, regardless of their velocity. I'll save you some time: there aren't any such sources.
Never mind that your alleged FMJ bullet not only supposedly shattered into dozens of tiny fragments but also allegedly did this while supposedly "shearing off" a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry and while also supposedly depositing two isolated fragments at the opposite end of the skull. Never mind that. Just find me one forensic source that says an FMJ bullet will ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking skull bone. Again, I'll save you some time: no such sources exist.
"Full velocity"? What is that? There's no such thing as a "full-velocity" rifle or "full velocity" ammo. Is "full velocity" your evasive synonym for "high velocity," since I proved to you that the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle? Because you seem to need things repeated, let's read once again what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC's about the rifle's velocity:
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. . . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
Yet, a whole bunch of experts who have examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, including the Clark Panel, have concluded they show damage caused by ammo that was moving at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said, "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet traveling at high velocity" (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ).
The Rockefeller Commission's medical panel concurred with the Clark Panel's conclusion about the velocity of the ammo that hit the head (see the medical panel's report in Rockefeller Commission Report, pp. 258-261). BTW, just FYI, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel consisted of Drs. Werner Spitz, Fred Hodges, Alfred Olivier, and Richard Lindenberg, and LTC Robert R. McMeekin, chief of aerospace pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Dr. Gerald McDonnel, one of the radiology experts consulted by the HSCA FPP, concluded that the bullet that hit the back of JFK's skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218). Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains, far too heavy.
So you have your alleged lone gunman firing the wrong kind of rifle (a low-velocity rifle, not a high-velocity rifle), using the wrong kind of ammo (FMJ ammo), and using the wrong kind of ammo that was also too heavy (ammo that was at least 38.6 grains too heavy to qualify as low-mass ammo, or at least 31% heavier than the heaviest low-mass ammo). Trifecta!
-
Yikes, "is our children learning?" You really should learn to speak English at a high-school level before you try to question anyone's credibility.
If you can't even speak English at a high-school level, it's a good bet you have no business passing judgment on who qualifies as a scholar.
Oh, goody for you. You caught one of my typos. I bet that made your day.
No, I documented the fact that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking bone.
No, you took Di Maio's statements out of context and applied your interpretation of them, then presented them as if Di Maio expressed those opinions. He never wrote anything that said Oswald's Carano bullet could not have shattered the way the x-rays showed it did. Then you flat out lied that he had changed his mind about Oswald being the assassin. He never said any such thing and we both know it.
Is this some kind of joke? You said this in response to my quoting of world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observation that if an x-ray shows dozens of tiny fragments, a "lead snowstorm," this rules out FMJ ammo, and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking bone, the fragments will be "few" in number. Did you miss that? Let's read it again:
You're lying again. I should have been more skeptical of your statements when I first read them given your history of misrepresenting the people you cite. Contrary to what you have implied, neither of Di Maio's books, Gunshot Wounds or Forensic Pathology, even address the issues of the JFK assassination.. Here is how AI answered that question:
Do Vincent DiMaio’s Gunshot Wounds and Forensic Pathology Address the JFK Assassination?
Neither Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques nor Forensic Pathology by Vincent J.M. DiMaio is a book that focuses on the JFK assassination.
About Gunshot Wounds
This CRC Press textbook, written by DiMaio — a former chief medical examiner in San Antonio — is a comprehensive, technical reference on firearm injuries, ballistics, wound classification, autopsy procedures, and forensic laboratory analysis Google Books+1. It covers the science and practice of examining gunshot wounds in general, but it does not contain a dedicated chapter or analysis of the JFK case. The book’s scope is broad, aimed at forensic pathologists, law enforcement, and legal professionals, but it is not case-specific.
About Forensic Pathology
The Forensic Pathology text also focuses on the principles and practice of forensic medicine, including autopsy techniques, cause and manner of death determination, and the role of forensic pathology in legal investigations Amazon. Like Gunshot Wounds, it is a general forensic science reference, not a case study or historical analysis of the JFK assassination.
Why they don’t address JFK
Both books are general forensic pathology and ballistics texts, not historical or political investigations.
They do not include case studies of the JFK assassination or related events.
DiMaio’s other works, such as those in the Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations series, may cover broader criminal investigations, but the JFK assassination is not a featured topic in the editions reviewed.
Conclusion
If you are looking for DiMaio’s work on the JFK assassination, you would need to consult other sources — such as historical investigations, official reports, or books specifically dedicated to the case — rather than these general forensic science texts.
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
You should now understand (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
This is your interpretation of Di Maio's work. He never wrote specifically about the JFK assassination in either of these textbooks and never expressed the opinions you attributed to him.
Uh, no, they cannot. Go back and re-read DiMaio's statements quoted above. I'll wait. . . . Still waiting. . . . Okay, that's long enough. Are we clear now?
For your additional education, I quote Dr. Cyril Wecht, a famous forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:
It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (Mortal Error, p. 231)
You're citing Mortal Error? One of the goofiest theories of the JFK assassination ever offered. But you don't care. You'll embrace anything that disputes the WCR. You don't even care that the sources you cite conflict with one another.
I defy you to cite a single forensic source that says that FMJ bullets will ever shatter into dozens of tiny pieces after striking bone, regardless of their velocity. I'll save you some time: there aren't any such sources.
The conclusions of the FPP said exactly that.
Never mind that your alleged FMJ bullet not only supposedly shattered into dozens of tiny fragments but also allegedly did this while supposedly "shearing off" a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry and while also supposedly depositing two isolated fragments at the opposite end of the skull. Never mind that. Just find me one forensic source that says an FMJ bullet will ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking skull bone. Again, I'll save you some time: no such sources exist.
[/quote[
Forgive me if I'm not at all impressed by your opinions about wound ballistics. You are a rank amateur on that subject.
"Full velocity"? What is that? There's no such thing as a "full-velocity" rifle or "full velocity" ammo. Is "full velocity" your evasive synonym for "high velocity," since I proved to you that the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle? Because you seem to need things repeated, let's read once again what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC's about the rifle's velocity:
I won't presume to speak for Bill Brown. He does a fine job of doing that for himself. High or low velocity when referring to bullets is a relative term. The Carcano had a lower velocity than an AR-15 or various .30-06 rounds. It had a much higher velocity than FMJ bullets fired from handguns which are by far used in more homicides than rifle bullets and which make up the bulk of the homicides in case studies of homicides involving FMJ ammo.
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. . . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
Yet, a whole bunch of experts who have examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, including the Clark Panel, have concluded they show damage caused by ammo that was moving at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said, "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet traveling at high velocity" (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ).
The Rockefeller Commission's medical panel concurred with the Clark Panel's conclusion about the velocity of the ammo that hit the head (see the medical panel's report in Rockefeller Commission Report, pp. 258-261). BTW, just FYI, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel consisted of Drs. Werner Spitz, Fred Hodges, Alfred Olivier, and Richard Lindenberg, and LTC Robert R. McMeekin, chief of aerospace pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Do you know of an accepted definition of what constitutes a high velocity round that both Eisenberg and the two panels you cited would have been adhering to? Eisenberg was comparing the Carcano to other military style rifles that do have a higher velocity. That does not relegate the Carcano to a low-velocity rifle. At 2265 fps, a Carcano FMJ
bullet produced enough energy to inflict a devastating wound on JFK's head.
Dr. Gerald McDonnel, one of the radiology experts consulted by the HSCA FPP, concluded that the bullet that hit the back of JFK's skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218). Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains, far too heavy.
So you have your alleged lone gunman firing the wrong kind of rifle (a low-velocity rifle, not a high-velocity rifle), using the wrong kind of ammo (FMJ ammo), and using the wrong kind of ammo that was also too heavy (ammo that was at least 38.6 grains too heavy to qualify as low-mass ammo, or at least 31% heavier than the heaviest low-mass ammo). Trifecta!
There you go again playing semantics with whether the Carcano was a high or low velocity weapon. It's all relative. The question is whether it was capable of inflicting the wounds on JFK and JBC. It certainly was.
-
No, I documented the fact that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking bone.
What a surprise, Griffith spreads even more disinformation.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YqRxNh6q/FMJ-bullet-lead-fragments.jpg)
JohnM
-
Griffith, why do you constantly ignore Experts and Scientists who are actually qualified and are real life Scholars in their chosen fields but instead rely on what amounts to garbagemen? Go figure??
Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who you like to dismiss, is the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch and performed practical recreations of Kennedy's head wound, why don't you quote this guy? Oh that's right you have a vested interest in supporting anything but.
Dr. Alfred G. Olivier while using human skulls recreated the shot into the back of Kennedy's head and guess what, the bullet separated into two pieces and closely resembled the recovered bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo. I bet your guy who was seemingly good at taking X-Rays didn't do this experiment but instead postulated his dumb dumdum bullet theory without considering the entirety of the physical evidence.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
1. The 2 larger test bullet fragments recovered by Dr. Oliver.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkJ9BSxN/ce857-ce858-test-carcano-bullets.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nr3yh7P4/ce-858-carcano-bullet-in-2-fragments.jpg)
2. The 2 larger bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's Limo
(https://i.postimg.cc/4N5dpFrP/ce567-ce569.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/K88YfDb2/JFK-3-D-Artifacts-Wide-64.gif)
And contrary to the belief of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, Dr. Oliver showed that the bullet after penetrating a human skull broke up into a shower of smaller lead fragments.
Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
-------snip------
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FH5ZJ1X3/ce-859-lead-fragments.jpg)
And just to show you how inadequate your research really is, here's Dr. John Lattimer who also did the same experiment and lo and behold his Carcano Bullet also broke up into two larger fragments.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13BvhPbF/lattimerfragments-zps338a33c1.gif)
So Griffith, instead of sweeping the very depths of the sewers in your search for unqualified anybody's that dispute the official findings of the many qualified Experts of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and etc. etc., perhaps you better start embracing these fine upstanding Pillars of Society who have the words TRUTH and Justice emblazoned as their middle names!
BTW, what's also very important is that the headshot bullet broke up into two fragments(CE567 CE569) which subsequently caused the windshield crack and the surrounding frame dent!
(https://i.ibb.co/HfdpFQVc/ce-399-567-569.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/23/a5/30/23a53023dc334fc810b2d628b8cad343.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/p63g6thp/CE349-Limousine-dent-frame.jpg)
And as proven above, a sea of lead fragments as seen in JFK's head X-ray.
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0379073822000949-gr11.jpg)
JohnM
-
[...]
ME: How much of the bullet that struck JFK in the head was never found?
Perplexity AI: Most of the head‑shot bullet was never recovered; only a few small fragments were found, so the majority of the original 6.5 mm Carcano bullet mass is missing.
Official fragment recovery
Parkland and the limousine yielded only a handful of metal pieces clearly associated with the fatal head shot. Contemporary descriptions and later ballistics work describe:
Two larger jacket/lead fragments on the front seat floor of the limousine.
Several much smaller lead specks seen on the autopsy skull X‑rays and removed as tiny fragments.
One documented fragment weighed about 2.89 g and included part of the lead core, while another weighed about 1.36 g, together still far short of a complete bullet.
How much is “missing” in mass terms
A full 6.5×52 mm Carcano military round typically uses a bullet weighing about 10.4 grams (160 grains). The documented larger recovered fragments from the head shot add up to roughly 4.25 g combined, plus only minute specks beyond that. This means on the order of 6 g or more of bullet mass—well over half, and probably closer to two‑thirds—was never recovered in identifiable form.
Modern finite‑element ballistic reconstructions use these fragment masses and locations, along with skull damage patterns, specifically because most of the bullet’s mass is unaccounted for and must be modeled rather than directly measured.
Context within the broader evidence
For the fatal head shot, the record thus consists of two moderate‑sized fragments plus numerous tiny metallic particles, not anything approaching an intact or nearly intact bullet.
-
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 14, 2026, 08:05:45 PM
You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:[SNIP]
In her discussion with Earl Golz Carolyn Arnold insisted she said 12:25...That was reinforced by her March 1964 FBI statement that listed in plain writing "12:25"...
FBI acted criminally and with intent when it criminally altered both Arnold's and Stanton's key witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...
You are misreading Carolyn Arnold's statements. You are confusing her departure time with the time she saw Oswald before she departed.
Arnold's 3/18/64 FBI statement says that she left the TSBD at 12:25, that she was standing at the front of the building before then, and that she did not see Oswald at the entrance (CE 1381, (http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf) p. 7). It says nothing about her seeing Oswald shortly before she left the building. Her 11/26/63 FBI statement has her saying that she left her office between 12:00 and 12:15 and that she "thought" she caught a "fleeting glimpse" of Oswald "standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor" (FBI file number DL 89-43-1743, 11/26/63 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=237888#relPageId=2)).
When she spoke with Earl Golz in 1978 (as Carolyn Arnold Johnston), she repeated that she left the TSBD at 12:25, but she also told Golz that she had never read her two FBI statements, and that she was surprised the statements did not mention that she saw Oswald sitting in the second floor lunchroom while she was getting a drink of water before she headed out to the front of the building ("Was Oswald in Window?", Dallas Morning News, 1978 (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf)).
This is exactly what she told Anthony Summers when he interviewed her in 1978, after Golz had interviewed her. She told Summes that she saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom at 12:15 or "slightly later" and that she was surprised this was not mentioned in her FBI statements.
So you have no reason to distrust Summers. He is one of the most careful, credible, and thorough scholars who has written about the JFK case. In fact, we should read what Summers says about the conflict between Carolyn Arnold's FBI statements and her 1978 account:
Should we believe Arnold’s 1978 recollection or the FBI account of what she told them back in 1963? Memories do blur, not least when much time has passed. One might think the FBI’s contemporary report more trustworthy than Arnold’s. FBI agents, however, are as fallible as other mortals. Mistakes in their reports, seen during research for the author’s biography of J. Edgar Hoover, ranged from spelling errors to outright distortions.
Agents in Dallas after the assassination, we know, worked under intolerable time. “Hoover’s obsession with speed,” former Assistant Director Courtney Evans recalled, “made impossible demands on the field. I can’t help but feel that had he let the agents out there do their work, let things take their normal investigative course, something other than the simple Oswald theory might have been developed. But Hoover’s demand was ‘Do it fast!’ That was not necessarily a prescription for getting the whole truth.”
Other former FBI agents recall having been virtually ordered to avoid leads that might indicate a possible conspiracy, to follow only those that would prove Oswald was the lone assassin.
Let us, then, allow for the possibility that Carolyn Arnold’s 1978 memory is correct, that she did see Oswald downstairs at 12:15 p.m. or later. It is, of course, possible that Oswald scurried upstairs to shoot the President after Arnold saw him in the second-floor lunchroom. Yet, as we have seen, bystander Arnold Rowland said he saw two men in sixth-floor windows, one of them holding a rifle across his chest, at 12:15. Rowland’s wife confirmed that her husband drew her attention to the man, whom he assumed to be a Secret Service agent. There was, of course, no such agent, and no other employees were on the sixth floor at that time.
The time detail -- 12:15 -- is the vital point here. It can be fixed so exactly because Rowland recalled having seen the man with the rifle just as a nearby police radio squawked out the news that the approaching motorcade had reached Cedar Springs Road. The police log shows that the President passed that point between 12:15 and 12:16.
Carolyn Arnold’s given time for leaving her office -- 12:15 or later -- is corroborated by contemporary statements made by her and office colleagues. She told the FBI she finally left the building, after visiting the lunchroom, as late as 12:25 p.m. If Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15 or after, who were the two men, one of them a gunman, whom Rowland said he saw in the sixth-floor windows? There never was any reliable eyewitness identification of Oswald in the sixth-floor window after he was seen downstairs. (Not In Your Lifetime[/], pp. 92-94)
Summers then proceeds to shred Howard Brennan's specious identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor gunman:
The Commission, however, set store by the evidence of Howard Brennan, a spectator in the street who stood directly opposite the Depository. He said he saw a man moving around at the famous “sniper’s perch” window between 12:22 and 12:24 and that, at the moment of the assassination, he looked up to see the man fire his final shot. Later that day, Brennan was taken to a police identity lineup that included Oswald. He failed to make a positive identification of Oswald as the man he had seen in the window—even though he had seen Oswald’s picture on television before attending the lineup.
A month later, however, Brennan told the FBI he was sure the man he had seen was Oswald. Three weeks on, he was saying he couldn’t be sure. And many months later, Brennan told the official inquiry that he could have identified Oswald at the lineup but had feared reprisals from the Communists.
Brennan’s testimony was replete with contradiction and confusion. He claimed to have been watching as the last shot was fired, yet saw neither flash, smoke, nor recoil. Testimony showed that, in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, he did not at once draw attention to what he claimed to have seen in the Book Depository, but joined others hurrying toward the grassy knoll. Questioning suggested that Brennan at first stated he had seen smoke in the area of the knoll. (Not In Your Lifetime[/], pp. 94-95)
So, again, you have no reason to distrust Summers. We are fortunate to have a scholar of his caliber on our side. Many far-left conspiracy theorists view Summers as a "sellout," if not an "Operation Mockingbird plant," because he doesn't share their political views, because he acknowledges that JFK was a flagrant adulterer, and because he doesn't go off on wild tangents about the Vietnam War, 9/11, etc., even though he argues for a Mafia-driven conspiracy and multiple gunmen.
Regarding John Mytton's reply about Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test, he is once again misrepresenting that test. I have pointed this out to him in other threads, but he has once again misrepresented Olivier's test as supporting the myth of the FMJ-bullet head shot. For one thing, as I've pointed out to Mytton in previous exchanges, the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays from Olivier's test looks nothing like the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Also, the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test did not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, contrary to what Mytton is falsely claiming. There are over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal fragment cloud alone in the autopsy skull x-rays, and that's not counting the other fragments near the right orbit, in the rear outer table, and the lone fragment in the left side of the skull. None of the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test produced that many fragments. I'll reply in more detail to Mytton's response today or tomorrow.
-
Summers then proceeds to shred Howard Brennan's specious identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor gunman:
The Commission, however, set store by the evidence of Howard Brennan, a spectator in the street who stood directly opposite the Depository. He said he saw a man moving around at the famous “sniper’s perch” window between 12:22 and 12:24 and that, at the moment of the assassination, he looked up to see the man fire his final shot. Later that day, Brennan was taken to a police identity lineup that included Oswald. He failed to make a positive identification of Oswald as the man he had seen in the window—even though he had seen Oswald’s picture on television before attending the lineup.
A month later, however, Brennan told the FBI he was sure the man he had seen was Oswald. Three weeks on, he was saying he couldn’t be sure. And many months later, Brennan told the official inquiry that he could have identified Oswald at the lineup but had feared reprisals from the Communists.
Brennan’s testimony was replete with contradiction and confusion. He claimed to have been watching as the last shot was fired, yet saw neither flash, smoke, nor recoil. Testimony showed that, in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, he did not at once draw attention to what he claimed to have seen in the Book Depository, but joined others hurrying toward the grassy knoll. Questioning suggested that Brennan at first stated he had seen smoke in the area of the knoll. (Not In Your Lifetime[/], pp. 94-95)
The value of Brennan's account is not whom he saw firing the weapon, but where he saw the weapon fired from. That part was corroborated by the three shells found at the very window he identified as the shooter's location. The murder weapon was found a short distance away on the same floor. He pointed that out to a cop within minutes of the shooting. While Brennan later did ID Oswald, I don't put much value in that part. It would be difficult for anyone to make a positive ID from his vantage point but the fact he was able to point out the location of the shooter is very compelling. We don't have to dismiss that part just because his ID of the shooter was less than positive. The forensice evidence found at that location is what makes the case against Oswald.
So, again, you have no reason to distrust Summers. We are fortunate to have a scholar of his caliber on our side. [/quote]
My side is the side of truth and Summers is of little help in establishing that.
Regarding John Mytton's reply about Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test, he is once again misrepresenting that test. I have pointed this out to him in other threads, but he has once again misrepresented Olivier's test as supporting the myth of the FMJ-bullet head shot. For one thing, as I've pointed out to Mytton in previous exchanges, the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays from Olivier's test looks nothing like the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Also, the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test did not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, contrary to what Mytton is falsely claiming. There are over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal fragment cloud alone in the autopsy skull x-rays, and that's not counting the other fragments near the right orbit, in the rear outer table, and the lone fragment in the left side of the skull. None of the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test produced that many fragments. I'll reply in more detail to Mytton's response today or tomorrow.
So now you expect tests to duplicate the pattern of fragmentation. It doesn't get any sillier than that. Oliver's test showed that an FMJ Carcano round will fragment. The fact the test bullet didn't fragment exactly the way Oswald's Carcano bullet did is not at all significant to people who have common sense.
-
[SNIP]Dr. Alfred G. Olivier while using human skulls recreated the shot into the back of Kennedy's head and guess what, the bullet separated into two pieces and closely resembled the recovered bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo. I bet your guy who was seemingly good at taking X-Rays didn't do this experiment but instead postulated his dumb dumdum bullet theory without considering the entirety of the physical evidence.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
1. The 2 larger test bullet fragments recovered by Dr. Oliver.
2. The 2 larger bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's Limo
And contrary to the belief of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, Dr. Oliver showed that the bullet after penetrating a human skull broke up into a shower of smaller lead fragments.
Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
-------snip------
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
And just to show you how inadequate your research really is, here's Dr. John Lattimer who also did the same experiment and lo and behold his Carcano Bullet also broke up into two larger fragments.
BTW, what's also very important is that the headshot bullet broke up into two fragments(CE567 CE569) which subsequently caused the windshield crack and the surrounding frame dent! JohnM
You posted a virtually identical reply in the thread "LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments," and I answered that reply in detail. Yet, here you are again repeating the same claims about Olivier's test while ignoring the facts that I presented to you in my response. Most of my comments below come from my response in that thread.
As for Dr. Olivier's testimony and his exhibits, do you have any clue how many scholars have examined Olivier's testimony and CE 857 and CE 859 and have noted the glaring holes in his claims? Did you ever ask yourself why Olivier would have showed fragments from only one of the 10 FMJ test shots into skulls? Now why do you suppose he would have done that? What about the fragments from the FMJ bullets fired into the nine other skulls? Hey?
Did you notice that Olivier and Arlen Specter had to go "off the record" after Specter asked Olivier if all the fragments in CE 859 were in CE 857 and after Olivier said they were "supposed to be"? Let's read:
Mr. Specter. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. Olivier. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
(Discussion off the record.)
(5 H 88)
Now, gee, why did they have to go off the record after Olivier gave that answer? Humm? Because there's an obvious difference between the number of fragments seen in CE 857 and the number seen in CE 859? CE 859 shows more fragments than are seen in CE 857.
Yet, even CE 859 shows at least 40% fewer fragments than the autopsy skull x-rays show. The skull x-rays show about 40 tiny fragments just in the right-frontal region alone. To the viewer's left of this fragment cloud we see a number of other fragments that are larger in size than the cloud fragments and that extend upward to a point at least 1 inch from the cowlick site. Not one of the bullets in Olivier's test deposited a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region and then created a trail of fragments that ranged upward from that fragment cloud. Not a single one.
In addition, there are at least two fragments on the back of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, one in the outer table and another between the galea and the outer table. Not a single one of the bullets in the Olivier's test deposited fragments on or above the outer table. Not a single one.
In Olivier's test, the skulls were coated with a gelatin thick enough to simulate scalp, and the skulls were also filled with gelatin to simulate brain tissue (5 H 87). Yet, the fragmentation pattern created by Olivier's FMJ bullets bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
As many scholars have noted, Olivier misrepresented his own test data and failed to mention serious contradictions between the wounds in the test skulls and JFK's head wounds. Physicist Howard Roffman noted one of the contradictions:
Ten skulls were fired upon with "Oswald's" rifle under conditions duplicating only those under which Oswald allegedly fired. Only one skull was subsequently shown to the Commission; the bullet that struck it "blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head wound of the President" (R87). This persuaded the "expert" to conclude--contrary to his beliefs nurtured by prior experience--"that the type of head wounds that the President received could be done by this type of bullet" (R87).
The pictures of this test exhibit printed by the Commission show a gelatin-filled skull with the bone of the entire right side missing (17H854). However, the gelatin underlying this missing bone is completely intact, so utterly undisturbed that it still bears the various minute impressions of the skull that once covered it. This gelatin was supposed to simulate the tissues within the skull (5H87). Yet those tissues, according to the autopsy report, were "lacerated," "disrupted," and "extensively lacerated" (16H981, 983). Obviously, even upon its entering the bony vault of the skull, the test bullet was not capable of producing the extensive damage attributed to it by the Commission. (Presumed Guilty, Associated University Press, 1975, pp. 112-113)
Dr. Don Thomas, a former research scientist for the U.S. Government:
The results also demonstrate another problematic aspect of both Lattimer's and Olivier's experimental results. Contrary to the statements of both men, neither set of experiments resulted in skull damage that resembled Kennedy's head wound. The top right side of Kennedy's cranium was burst open, but the President's face was intact. In Lattimer's and Olivier's skulls, parts of the face were destroyed (Fig. 10.3), which is only to be expected from bullets entering the back of the head. (Hear No Evil, MFF Press, 2010, p. 364)
And, as we have discussed, the 10 bullets that were fired into skulls in Olivier's test produced only about 30 fragments, for an average of three fragments per bullet. Not one of them blew up into dozens of fragments. Not one of them magically deposited two fragments (much less two mid-section fragments) on the outer table of the skull. Remember that Olivier told Howard Donahue that the FMJ bullets in his test only broke into a few fragments each.
I once again invite you to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet struck a a human skull and (1) shattered into dozens of fragments, (2) left two fragments 1 cm below or 9 cm above the entry point, and (3) also ejected its nose and tail from the skull. Find me just one case where this has occurred. Just one.
The give-away is the test skull x-rays from Olivier's test. Even a layman can see that the fragmentation caused by Olivier's FMJ bullets bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays, as I've explained previously.
In the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, the FMJ bullets only broke into a few fragments.
And, as proved earlier, DiMaio categorically ruled out FMJ bullets in cases where x-rays show a large concentration of dozens of small fragments (he used the term "lead snow storm").
Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but obviously they do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter felt the need to do that?
So it's not 58 fragments in total. It's fewer than 40 fragments, and there is considerable doubt, given the test skull x-rays, that those exhibits contained only fragments from one bullet, not to mention the fact that at least 20 of them were sizable fragments and that the fragmentation pattern they produced in the test skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
Are you ever going to you explain the fact that the x-rays of the test skull show minimal fragmentation?
The skull x-rays from Olivier's test refute your argument. They show minimal fragmentation. CEs 857, 858, and 859, even ignoring the questions about their validity, do not prove your claim. Lattimer's test produced no more than 23 fragments, 8 of which were sizable, which bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test behaved in the same way that Olivier told Donahue the FMJ bullets in the WC test behaved: they broke into no more than a few fragments.
Crucially, not one of the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, yet the JFK skull x-rays show a 6.5 mm object placed over the image of a smaller genuine 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment on the outer table of the skull.
Even Sturdivan acknowledged that if the 6.5 mm object was an FMJ bullet fragment, it would have had to come from the cross-section, and that there is no way this could have happened in this case. I've already quoted Sturdivan's statement that the 6.5 mm object cannot be from the cross-section of an FMJ bullet, and his statement that no FMJ bullet would deposit fragments on the outer table of the skull. Let's read him again, shall we?
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. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, KDP, 2022, p. 21)
In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Sturdivan explains the 6.5 mm object seen on the autopsy x-rays cannot be from an FMJ bullet in response to Dr. Michael Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence for the debunked cowlick entry site:
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (pp. 184-185, emphasis added)
Even Larry Sturdivan now admits that the 6.5 mm object is a superimposed image; he argues that it was superimposed by accident, but he has no rational theory for how this alleged accident could have occurred (pp. 184-188).
There is no way the alleged FMJ head-shot bullet could have deposited the circular 6.5 mm object and the McDonnel fragment from its nose on the outer table of the skull, especially since a good chunk of this bullet's nose was allegedly recovered from the limousine. And, pray tell, how would those fragments have ended up 1 cm below the alleged entry point?
Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.
This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.
Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death.
The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.
Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).
One could also ask, Why didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.
Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment must have resulted from hearing the autopsy doctors talk about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. The autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lambda.
So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.
The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is indeed the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit, which is why Sibert and O'Neill said the back-of-head fragment was the second-largest fragment.
As for your comment that in Dr. Lattimer's test, one of the FMJ bullets broke up into "two larger fragments," I again ask, how does this comment address the fact that the x-rays of the skulls from Lattimer's test show no fragments in the skulls? Did you not notice that Lattimer specified that the two fragments that you mention were recovered from outside the skull ("after passing through a skull")?! Do you even read the text in the images that you post before you post them?
I notice that you snipped and ignored the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test broke up into numerous fragments. I might add, as I discuss in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," that the FMJ bullets in the HSCA's test likewise failed to behave like the ammo that hit JFK in the head. Side-view photos of the HSCA gelatin blocks showed that all of the FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, drastically different from the brain damage that JFK suffered. And I would again note that you still have not explained the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited two bullet fragments on or above the outer table when penetrating a skull.
You realize that Dr. Russell Morgan was a member of the Clark Panel and that he was regarded as one of the best radiologists in the world at the time, right? He was the only radiologist on the panel. But, nah, according to you he had no business talking about what the x-rays showed about the kind of ammo that was used!
-
You posted a virtually identical reply in the thread "LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments," and I answered that reply in detail. Yet, here you are again repeating the same claims about Olivier's test while ignoring the facts that I presented to you in my response. Most of my comments below come from my response in that thread.
As for Dr. Olivier's testimony and his exhibits, do you have any clue how many scholars
MTG thinks that by calling the kooks he cites "scholars", that somehow gives them credibility. It hasn't worked so far.
(yadda, yadda, yadda snipped)
As many scholars have noted,
OOH! More scholars. <chuckle>
Dictionary definition of scholar
scholar (noun)
scholars (plural noun)
a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities
MTG definition of scholar
scholar (noun)
scholars (plural noun)
Someone who believes the same crazy Helicopter :) MTG believes.
-
You posted a virtually identical reply in the thread "LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments," and I answered that reply in detail. Yet, here you are again repeating the same claims about Olivier's test while ignoring the facts that I presented to you in my response. Most of my comments below come from my response in that thread.
As for Dr. Olivier's testimony and his exhibits, do you have any clue how many scholars have examined Olivier's testimony and CE 857 and CE 859 and have noted the glaring holes in his claims? Did you ever ask yourself why Olivier would have showed fragments from only one of the 10 FMJ test shots into skulls? Now why do you suppose he would have done that? What about the fragments from the FMJ bullets fired into the nine other skulls? Hey?
Did you notice that Olivier and Arlen Specter had to go "off the record" after Specter asked Olivier if all the fragments in CE 859 were in CE 857 and after Olivier said they were "supposed to be"? Let's read:
Mr. Specter. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. Olivier. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
(Discussion off the record.)
(5 H 88)
Now, gee, why did they have to go off the record after Olivier gave that answer? Humm? Because there's an obvious difference between the number of fragments seen in CE 857 and the number seen in CE 859? CE 859 shows more fragments than are seen in CE 857.
Yet, even CE 859 shows at least 40% fewer fragments than the autopsy skull x-rays show. The skull x-rays show about 40 tiny fragments just in the right-frontal region alone. To the viewer's left of this fragment cloud we see a number of other fragments that are larger in size than the cloud fragments and that extend upward to a point at least 1 inch from the cowlick site. Not one of the bullets in Olivier's test deposited a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region and then created a trail of fragments that ranged upward from that fragment cloud. Not a single one.
In addition, there are at least two fragments on the back of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, one in the outer table and another between the galea and the outer table. Not a single one of the bullets in the Olivier's test deposited fragments on or above the outer table. Not a single one.
In Olivier's test, the skulls were coated with a gelatin thick enough to simulate scalp, and the skulls were also filled with gelatin to simulate brain tissue (5 H 87). Yet, the fragmentation pattern created by Olivier's FMJ bullets bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
As many scholars have noted, Olivier misrepresented his own test data and failed to mention serious contradictions between the wounds in the test skulls and JFK's head wounds. Physicist Howard Roffman noted one of the contradictions:
Ten skulls were fired upon with "Oswald's" rifle under conditions duplicating only those under which Oswald allegedly fired. Only one skull was subsequently shown to the Commission; the bullet that struck it "blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head wound of the President" (R87). This persuaded the "expert" to conclude--contrary to his beliefs nurtured by prior experience--"that the type of head wounds that the President received could be done by this type of bullet" (R87).
The pictures of this test exhibit printed by the Commission show a gelatin-filled skull with the bone of the entire right side missing (17H854). However, the gelatin underlying this missing bone is completely intact, so utterly undisturbed that it still bears the various minute impressions of the skull that once covered it. This gelatin was supposed to simulate the tissues within the skull (5H87). Yet those tissues, according to the autopsy report, were "lacerated," "disrupted," and "extensively lacerated" (16H981, 983). Obviously, even upon its entering the bony vault of the skull, the test bullet was not capable of producing the extensive damage attributed to it by the Commission. (Presumed Guilty, Associated University Press, 1975, pp. 112-113)
Dr. Don Thomas, a former research scientist for the U.S. Government:
The results also demonstrate another problematic aspect of both Lattimer's and Olivier's experimental results. Contrary to the statements of both men, neither set of experiments resulted in skull damage that resembled Kennedy's head wound. The top right side of Kennedy's cranium was burst open, but the President's face was intact. In Lattimer's and Olivier's skulls, parts of the face were destroyed (Fig. 10.3), which is only to be expected from bullets entering the back of the head. (Hear No Evil, MFF Press, 2010, p. 364)
And, as we have discussed, the 10 bullets that were fired into skulls in Olivier's test produced only about 30 fragments, for an average of three fragments per bullet. Not one of them blew up into dozens of fragments. Not one of them magically deposited two fragments (much less two mid-section fragments) on the outer table of the skull. Remember that Olivier told Howard Donahue that the FMJ bullets in his test only broke into a few fragments each.
I once again invite you to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet struck a a human skull and (1) shattered into dozens of fragments, (2) left two fragments 1 cm below or 9 cm above the entry point, and (3) also ejected its nose and tail from the skull. Find me just one case where this has occurred. Just one.
The give-away is the test skull x-rays from Olivier's test. Even a layman can see that the fragmentation caused by Olivier's FMJ bullets bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays, as I've explained previously.
In the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, the FMJ bullets only broke into a few fragments.
And, as proved earlier, DiMaio categorically ruled out FMJ bullets in cases where x-rays show a large concentration of dozens of small fragments (he used the term "lead snow storm").
Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but obviously they do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter felt the need to do that?
So it's not 58 fragments in total. It's fewer than 40 fragments, and there is considerable doubt, given the test skull x-rays, that those exhibits contained only fragments from one bullet, not to mention the fact that at least 20 of them were sizable fragments and that the fragmentation pattern they produced in the test skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
Are you ever going to you explain the fact that the x-rays of the test skull show minimal fragmentation?
The skull x-rays from Olivier's test refute your argument. They show minimal fragmentation. CEs 857, 858, and 859, even ignoring the questions about their validity, do not prove your claim. Lattimer's test produced no more than 23 fragments, 8 of which were sizable, which bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test behaved in the same way that Olivier told Donahue the FMJ bullets in the WC test behaved: they broke into no more than a few fragments.
Crucially, not one of the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, yet the JFK skull x-rays show a 6.5 mm object placed over the image of a smaller genuine 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment on the outer table of the skull.
Even Sturdivan acknowledged that if the 6.5 mm object was an FMJ bullet fragment, it would have had to come from the cross-section, and that there is no way this could have happened in this case. I've already quoted Sturdivan's statement that the 6.5 mm object cannot be from the cross-section of an FMJ bullet, and his statement that no FMJ bullet would deposit fragments on the outer table of the skull. Let's read him again, shall we?
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. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, KDP, 2022, p. 21)
In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Sturdivan explains the 6.5 mm object seen on the autopsy x-rays cannot be from an FMJ bullet in response to Dr. Michael Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence for the debunked cowlick entry site:
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (pp. 184-185, emphasis added)
Even Larry Sturdivan now admits that the 6.5 mm object is a superimposed image; he argues that it was superimposed by accident, but he has no rational theory for how this alleged accident could have occurred (pp. 184-188).
There is no way the alleged FMJ head-shot bullet could have deposited the circular 6.5 mm object and the McDonnel fragment from its nose on the outer table of the skull, especially since a good chunk of this bullet's nose was allegedly recovered from the limousine. And, pray tell, how would those fragments have ended up 1 cm below the alleged entry point?
Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.
This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.
Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death.
The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.
Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).
One could also ask, Why didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.
Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment must have resulted from hearing the autopsy doctors talk about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. The autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lambda.
So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.
The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is indeed the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit, which is why Sibert and O'Neill said the back-of-head fragment was the second-largest fragment.
As for your comment that in Dr. Lattimer's test, one of the FMJ bullets broke up into "two larger fragments," I again ask, how does this comment address the fact that the x-rays of the skulls from Lattimer's test show no fragments in the skulls? Did you not notice that Lattimer specified that the two fragments that you mention were recovered from outside the skull ("after passing through a skull")?! Do you even read the text in the images that you post before you post them?
I notice that you snipped and ignored the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test broke up into numerous fragments. I might add, as I discuss in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," that the FMJ bullets in the HSCA's test likewise failed to behave like the ammo that hit JFK in the head. Side-view photos of the HSCA gelatin blocks showed that all of the FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, drastically different from the brain damage that JFK suffered. And I would again note that you still have not explained the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited two bullet fragments on or above the outer table when penetrating a skull.
You realize that Dr. Russell Morgan was a member of the Clark Panel and that he was regarded as one of the best radiologists in the world at the time, right? He was the only radiologist on the panel. But, nah, according to you he had no business talking about what the x-rays showed about the kind of ammo that was used!
I think some follow-up to these points will be helpful.
Howard Donahue, a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert, met with Dr. Alfred Olivier in the spring of 1969. Donahue wanted to talk with Olivier about the head-shot wound ballistics test that Olivier conducted for the Warren Commission (WC) in 1964. In that test, 10 FMJ bullets were fired into human skulls. The skulls were wrapped and filled with ballistics gelatin to simulate both the scalp on the skull and the brain matter inside the skull. The gelatin on the outer surface of the skull was "trimmed down to approximate the thickness of the tissues overlying the skull, the soft tissues of the head" (5 H 87).
Olivier told Donahue that "in each case" the bullets broke into "only two or three large fragments," and that the bullets did not "disintegrate or explode." Olivier even showed Donahue the skulls from the test, and Donahue noted that the resulting exit wounds were "nowhere close to where Kennedy's exit wound was located." I quote from Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error, which Menninger wrote with Donahue to tell the story of how Donahue came to formulate the mortal-error theory of the assassination:
Donahue needed more data. He'd already concluded that the slug [the head-shot bullet] -- by virtue of its disintegration on impact -- showed all the characteristics of a small-caliber, high-velocity, soft-nosed round. But what about the Warren Commission's test firings? Did the Carcano test bullets disintegrate in a similar fashion? Donahue didn't think so. The doctor who'd conducted the flawed analysis of the single-bullet theory -- the shots through goat meat and cadavers -- Dr. Alfred Olivier up at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal, had done the head-shot tests as well. What could be learned from Olivier?
In the spring of 1969, Donahue made a phone call to Edgewood. Luckily, Olivier was still employed there. Donahue got Olivier on the line and, without going into detail, explained that he was a weapons expert who'd been investigating the assassination. He said he'd be very interested in seeing the results of Olivier's head-shot test firings firsthand. Would it be possible to come and visit him? Olivier said he didn't see why not, and the two set an appointment for the following week.
Edgewood is located an hour or so north of Baltimore on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. The compound is part of the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, a sprawling facility where in the 1960s the instruments of war -- everything from artillery rounds to napalm -- were tested and refined.
Olivier was a veterinarian by training and responsible for studying the effects of gunshots on animals in the arsenal's wound ballistics lab. Donahue found Olivier to be a friendly man with graying hair and wire-rimmed glasses. The men exchanged pleasantries. Donahue asked about the doctor's attempts to duplicate the President's head wounds. Olivier explained he had test-fired Carcano rounds into ten human skulls filled with gelatin. The gelatin simulated the human brain.
"Did the bullets break up?" Donahue asked.
"Yes, they did," Olivier replied.
"How big were the fragments? I mean. . . . How many were there?"
"Well, in each case, I could find only two or three large fragments, but together they seemed to account for the bulk of the bullet's mass."
"So the bullets didn't disintegrate or explode, as far as you could see?" Donahue asked.
"No," Olivier replied, "they did not."
Donahue asked if any of these fragments had somehow been deposited on the outside table of the skull.
"No," Olivier said. "Actually, I have the skulls here. I brought them out in anticipation of your visit. Would you like to see them?"
Olivier began pulling human skulls out of two plastic bags. Donahue quickly made a mental note. Olivier had obviously fired his shots into the skulls slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. . . .
Predictably, the resulting exit wounds were nowhere close to where Kennedy's exit wound was located. Most were in the face of the skull, shattering the bones in the forehead area. (Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK, St. Martin's Press, 1992, pp. 83-84).
Yet, the transcript of Olivier's WC testimony has Olivier saying that all the bullet fragments in CE 857 came from one bullet and were recovered from a single skull from the head-shot test, which is a physical impossibility for an FMJ bullet and which contradicts what Olivier told Donahue about his test.
Furthermore, CE 857 shows 19-21 fragments plus two large fragments. Even if we assume that all those fragments came from a single bullet, this would not duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. The JFK head-shot ammo deposited over 30 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, deposited several fragments to the left (viewer's left) of the right-frontal fragment cluster, deposited two fragments slightly behind and above the right orbit at least 1 inch from any other fragment, deposited a lone fragment in the left side of the skull, and deposited several fragments and a few particles on the rear outer table of the skull.
It gets worse, and more suspicious. CE 857 and CE 859 are supposed to show the same fragments from the same bullet recovered from the same skull, but they clearly do not show this. CE 859 shows 32-35 fragments, at least five of which are 10-20 mm wide and 10-20 mm long, but the two large fragments seen in CE 857 are not shown.
Even WC counsel Arlen Specter noticed this obvious discrepancy and asked Olivier about it. Olivier said the two exhibits were supposed to contain the same fragments, and then suggested that some of the fragments may have "dropped out," presumably before the exhibits were photographed. At that point, Specter felt compelled to hold an off-the-record discussion with Olivier. When they came back on the record, nothing more was said about the obvious conflict between the two exhibits:
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out, they are supposed to be all there.
(Discussion off the record.) (5 H 88)
We should keep in mind that Olivier worked for the Army, so he could have been ordered to misrepresent his test results. If he had refused, he could have been fired. Notice that not one word was said about the fragmentation of the nine other bullets in Olivier's test, a very odd and suspicious omission, especially since Olivier was never asked if the supposed fragmentation of the one test bullet was representative of the behavior of the other test bullets.
Physicist Howard Roffman noted way back in 1976 that the released skull x-rays from Oliver's head-shot test show bullet fragmentation that is very different from the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays:
These x-rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald1s rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the X rays: "The whole head looked like a little mass of stars." The fragmentation depicted on these test x-rays obviously differs from that described in the president's head. The upper x-ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy.(Presumed Guilty, A. S. Barnes, 1976, pp. 155-157; pp. 156-157 show the released skull x-rays from Olivier's test)
Roffman also noted that the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays is not the type fragmentation that would be caused by an FMJ bullet:
The only solid observation that can be made on the basis of fragmentation depicted in the head x-rays is that a bullet striking the head fragmented extensively, leaving pieces of metal, for the most part "the size of dust particles," concentrated toward the frontal portion of the brain. This type of fragmentation is not consistent with the type of full-jacketed military ammunition that the Commission says was used. The construction and composition of full-jacketed bullets obviates any such massive break-up. As noted previously, when military ammunition fragments, it is usually in such a manner that the core separates from the jacket. The core may undergo further break-up, although its metallic composition does not permit the creation of numerous dust-like particles. (Presumed Guilty, pp. 117-118.)
-
I think some follow-up to these points will be helpful.
I think you had already posted plenty of nonsense. You didn't need to add on.
Howard Donahue, a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert, met with Dr. Alfred Olivier in the spring of 1969. Donahue wanted to talk with Olivier about the head-shot wound ballistics test that Olivier conducted for the Warren Commission (WC) in 1964. In that test, 10 FMJ bullets were fired into human skulls. The skulls were wrapped and filled with ballistics gelatin to simulate both the scalp on the skull and the brain matter inside the skull. The gelatin on the outer surface of the skull was "trimmed down to approximate the thickness of the tissues overlying the skull, the soft tissues of the head" (5 H 87).
Olivier told Donahue that "in each case" the bullets broke into "only two or three large fragments," and that the bullets did not "disintegrate or explode." Olivier even showed Donahue the skulls from the test, and Donahue noted that the resulting exit wounds were "nowhere close to where Kennedy's exit wound was located." I quote from Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error, which Menninger wrote with Donahue to tell the story of how Donahue came to formulate the mortal-error theory of the assassination:
Donahue needed more data. He'd already concluded that the slug [the head-shot bullet] -- by virtue of its disintegration on impact -- showed all the characteristics of a small-caliber, high-velocity, soft-nosed round. But what about the Warren Commission's test firings? Did the Carcano test bullets disintegrate in a similar fashion? Donahue didn't think so. The doctor who'd conducted the flawed analysis of the single-bullet theory -- the shots through goat meat and cadavers -- Dr. Alfred Olivier up at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal, had done the head-shot tests as well. What could be learned from Olivier?
In the spring of 1969, Donahue made a phone call to Edgewood. Luckily, Olivier was still employed there. Donahue got Olivier on the line and, without going into detail, explained that he was a weapons expert who'd been investigating the assassination. He said he'd be very interested in seeing the results of Olivier's head-shot test firings firsthand. Would it be possible to come and visit him? Olivier said he didn't see why not, and the two set an appointment for the following week.
Edgewood is located an hour or so north of Baltimore on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. The compound is part of the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, a sprawling facility where in the 1960s the instruments of war -- everything from artillery rounds to napalm -- were tested and refined.
Olivier was a veterinarian by training and responsible for studying the effects of gunshots on animals in the arsenal's wound ballistics lab. Donahue found Olivier to be a friendly man with graying hair and wire-rimmed glasses. The men exchanged pleasantries. Donahue asked about the doctor's attempts to duplicate the President's head wounds. Olivier explained he had test-fired Carcano rounds into ten human skulls filled with gelatin. The gelatin simulated the human brain.
"Did the bullets break up?" Donahue asked.
"Yes, they did," Olivier replied.
"How big were the fragments? I mean. . . . How many were there?"
"Well, in each case, I could find only two or three large fragments, but together they seemed to account for the bulk of the bullet's mass."
"So the bullets didn't disintegrate or explode, as far as you could see?" Donahue asked.
"No," Olivier replied, "they did not."
Donahue asked if any of these fragments had somehow been deposited on the outside table of the skull.
"No," Olivier said. "Actually, I have the skulls here. I brought them out in anticipation of your visit. Would you like to see them?"
Olivier began pulling human skulls out of two plastic bags. Donahue quickly made a mental note. Olivier had obviously fired his shots into the skulls slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. . . .
Predictably, the resulting exit wounds were nowhere close to where Kennedy's exit wound was located. Most were in the face of the skull, shattering the bones in the forehead area. (Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK, St. Martin's Press, 1992, pp. 83-84).
Yet, the transcript of Olivier's WC testimony has Olivier saying that all the bullet fragments in CE 857 came from one bullet and were recovered from a single skull from the head-shot test, which is a physical impossibility for an FMJ bullet and which contradicts what Olivier told Donahue about his test.
Furthermore, CE 857 shows 19-21 fragments plus two large fragments. Even if we assume that all those fragments came from a single bullet, this would not duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. The JFK head-shot ammo deposited over 30 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, deposited several fragments to the left (viewer's left) of the right-frontal fragment cluster, deposited two fragments slightly behind and above the right orbit at least 1 inch from any other fragment, deposited a lone fragment in the left side of the skull, and deposited several fragments and a few particles on the rear outer table of the skull.
It gets worse, and more suspicious. CE 857 and CE 859 are supposed to show the same fragments from the same bullet recovered from the same skull, but they clearly do not show this. CE 859 shows 32-35 fragments, at least five of which are 10-20 mm wide and 10-20 mm long, but the two large fragments seen in CE 857 are not shown.
Even WC counsel Arlen Specter noticed this obvious discrepancy and asked Olivier about it. Olivier said the two exhibits were supposed to contain the same fragments, and then suggested that some of the fragments may have "dropped out," presumably before the exhibits were photographed. At that point, Specter felt compelled to hold an off-the-record discussion with Olivier. When they came back on the record, nothing more was said about the obvious conflict between the two exhibits:
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out, they are supposed to be all there.
(Discussion off the record.) (5 H 88)
We should keep in mind that Olivier worked for the Army, so he could have been ordered to misrepresent his test results. If he had refused, he could have been fired. Notice that not one word was said about the fragmentation of the nine other bullets in Olivier's test, a very odd and suspicious omission, especially since Olivier was never asked if the supposed fragmentation of the one test bullet was representative of the behavior of the other test bullets.
Physicist Howard Roffman noted way back in 1976 that the released skull x-rays from Oliver's head-shot test show bullet fragmentation that is very different from the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays:
These x-rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald1s rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the X rays: "The whole head looked like a little mass of stars." The fragmentation depicted on these test x-rays obviously differs from that described in the president's head. The upper x-ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy.(Presumed Guilty, A. S. Barnes, 1976, pp. 155-157; pp. 156-157 show the released skull x-rays from Olivier's test)
Roffman also noted that the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays is not the type fragmentation that would be caused by an FMJ bullet:
The only solid observation that can be made on the basis of fragmentation depicted in the head x-rays is that a bullet striking the head fragmented extensively, leaving pieces of metal, for the most part "the size of dust particles," concentrated toward the frontal portion of the brain. This type of fragmentation is not consistent with the type of full-jacketed military ammunition that the Commission says was used. The construction and composition of full-jacketed bullets obviates any such massive break-up. As noted previously, when military ammunition fragments, it is usually in such a manner that the core separates from the jacket. The core may undergo further break-up, although its metallic composition does not permit the creation of numerous dust-like particles. (Presumed Guilty, pp. 117-118.)
All of the above is rendered moot by the fact that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found in the limo with two large fragments being positively matched to Oswald's rifle and a number of smaller fragments were also found. These fragments were less than the material contained by a FMJ Carcano bullet so we can safely say some of the fragments flew out of the limo. MTG would have us believe that a bullet struck JFK's head and disappeared without a trace. MTG apparently believes in several Magic Bullets that struck both JFK and JBC and then disappeared into thin air. The WCR scenario has none of these problems. It fully explains all the wounds to the two men with just two bullets fired from the sniper's nest, both of which are accounted for. The single bullet which struck JFK in the back, yawed upon exiting from his throat, making an elongated wound into JBC's back who was lined up perfectly to be struck by that bullet. That bullet exited from the right side of JBC's and wrist, flattening it at the base and depositing small lead fragments from the base. We know those fragments came from the base because that is the only place the lead core was exposed. That bullet then went on to make a shallow entry into JBC's thigh before working it's way out and being discovered later that day at Parkland. MTG rejects that scenario even though he has no evidence or explanation for other bullets fired from other locations, which wounds they caused, nor where they ended up. He's not alone, however. No other CT has been able to provide such an explanation over 62 years.
-
I think some follow-up to these points will be helpful.
Howard Donahue, a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert, met with Dr. Alfred Olivier in the spring of 1969. Donahue wanted to talk with Olivier about the head-shot wound ballistics test that Olivier conducted for the Warren Commission (WC) in 1964. In that test, 10 FMJ bullets were fired into human skulls. The skulls were wrapped and filled with ballistics gelatin to simulate both the scalp on the skull and the brain matter inside the skull. The gelatin on the outer surface of the skull was "trimmed down to approximate the thickness of the tissues overlying the skull, the soft tissues of the head" (5 H 87).
Olivier told Donahue that "in each case" the bullets broke into "only two or three large fragments," and that the bullets did not "disintegrate or explode." Olivier even showed Donahue the skulls from the test, and Donahue noted that the resulting exit wounds were "nowhere close to where Kennedy's exit wound was located." I quote from Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error, which Menninger wrote with Donahue to tell the story of how Donahue came to formulate the mortal-error theory of the assassination:
Donahue needed more data. He'd already concluded that the slug [the head-shot bullet] -- by virtue of its disintegration on impact -- showed all the characteristics of a small-caliber, high-velocity, soft-nosed round. But what about the Warren Commission's test firings? Did the Carcano test bullets disintegrate in a similar fashion? Donahue didn't think so. The doctor who'd conducted the flawed analysis of the single-bullet theory -- the shots through goat meat and cadavers -- Dr. Alfred Olivier up at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal, had done the head-shot tests as well. What could be learned from Olivier?
In the spring of 1969, Donahue made a phone call to Edgewood. Luckily, Olivier was still employed there. Donahue got Olivier on the line and, without going into detail, explained that he was a weapons expert who'd been investigating the assassination. He said he'd be very interested in seeing the results of Olivier's head-shot test firings firsthand. Would it be possible to come and visit him? Olivier said he didn't see why not, and the two set an appointment for the following week.
Edgewood is located an hour or so north of Baltimore on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. The compound is part of the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, a sprawling facility where in the 1960s the instruments of war -- everything from artillery rounds to napalm -- were tested and refined.
Olivier was a veterinarian by training and responsible for studying the effects of gunshots on animals in the arsenal's wound ballistics lab. Donahue found Olivier to be a friendly man with graying hair and wire-rimmed glasses. The men exchanged pleasantries. Donahue asked about the doctor's attempts to duplicate the President's head wounds. Olivier explained he had test-fired Carcano rounds into ten human skulls filled with gelatin. The gelatin simulated the human brain.
"Did the bullets break up?" Donahue asked.
"Yes, they did," Olivier replied.
"How big were the fragments? I mean. . . . How many were there?"
"Well, in each case, I could find only two or three large fragments, but together they seemed to account for the bulk of the bullet's mass."
"So the bullets didn't disintegrate or explode, as far as you could see?" Donahue asked.
"No," Olivier replied, "they did not."
Donahue asked if any of these fragments had somehow been deposited on the outside table of the skull.
"No," Olivier said. "Actually, I have the skulls here. I brought them out in anticipation of your visit. Would you like to see them?"
Olivier began pulling human skulls out of two plastic bags. Donahue quickly made a mental note. Olivier had obviously fired his shots into the skulls slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. . . .
Predictably, the resulting exit wounds were nowhere close to where Kennedy's exit wound was located. Most were in the face of the skull, shattering the bones in the forehead area. (Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK, St. Martin's Press, 1992, pp. 83-84).
Yet, the transcript of Olivier's WC testimony has Olivier saying that all the bullet fragments in CE 857 came from one bullet and were recovered from a single skull from the head-shot test, which is a physical impossibility for an FMJ bullet and which contradicts what Olivier told Donahue about his test.
Furthermore, CE 857 shows 19-21 fragments plus two large fragments. Even if we assume that all those fragments came from a single bullet, this would not duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. The JFK head-shot ammo deposited over 30 tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, deposited several fragments to the left (viewer's left) of the right-frontal fragment cluster, deposited two fragments slightly behind and above the right orbit at least 1 inch from any other fragment, deposited a lone fragment in the left side of the skull, and deposited several fragments and a few particles on the rear outer table of the skull.
It gets worse, and more suspicious. CE 857 and CE 859 are supposed to show the same fragments from the same bullet recovered from the same skull, but they clearly do not show this. CE 859 shows 32-35 fragments, at least five of which are 10-20 mm wide and 10-20 mm long, but the two large fragments seen in CE 857 are not shown.
Even WC counsel Arlen Specter noticed this obvious discrepancy and asked Olivier about it. Olivier said the two exhibits were supposed to contain the same fragments, and then suggested that some of the fragments may have "dropped out," presumably before the exhibits were photographed. At that point, Specter felt compelled to hold an off-the-record discussion with Olivier. When they came back on the record, nothing more was said about the obvious conflict between the two exhibits:
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out, they are supposed to be all there.
(Discussion off the record.) (5 H 88)
We should keep in mind that Olivier worked for the Army, so he could have been ordered to misrepresent his test results. If he had refused, he could have been fired. Notice that not one word was said about the fragmentation of the nine other bullets in Olivier's test, a very odd and suspicious omission, especially since Olivier was never asked if the supposed fragmentation of the one test bullet was representative of the behavior of the other test bullets.
Physicist Howard Roffman noted way back in 1976 that the released skull x-rays from Oliver's head-shot test show bullet fragmentation that is very different from the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays:
These x-rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald1s rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the X rays: "The whole head looked like a little mass of stars." The fragmentation depicted on these test x-rays obviously differs from that described in the president's head. The upper x-ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy.(Presumed Guilty, A. S. Barnes, 1976, pp. 155-157; pp. 156-157 show the released skull x-rays from Olivier's test)
Roffman also noted that the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays is not the type fragmentation that would be caused by an FMJ bullet:
The only solid observation that can be made on the basis of fragmentation depicted in the head x-rays is that a bullet striking the head fragmented extensively, leaving pieces of metal, for the most part "the size of dust particles," concentrated toward the frontal portion of the brain. This type of fragmentation is not consistent with the type of full-jacketed military ammunition that the Commission says was used. The construction and composition of full-jacketed bullets obviates any such massive break-up. As noted previously, when military ammunition fragments, it is usually in such a manner that the core separates from the jacket. The core may undergo further break-up, although its metallic composition does not permit the creation of numerous dust-like particles. (Presumed Guilty, pp. 117-118.)
As a follow-up, I quote more of physicist Howard Roffman's discussion on the evidence that FMJ ammo was not the ammo that hit JFK's head, and that the ammo that hit JFK's skull was traveling at a high velocity (whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle):
The Commission had its "expert" compare these fragments with the two similar fragments that were found in the front seat of the presidential limousine and identifiable with "Oswald's" rifle. The result of this comparison, as presented in the Report, is seemingly to associate these traceable fragments with the head wounds. The expert is quoted as follows:
"the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and the floor of the car. This to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head." (Warren Report, p. 87)
These are the last words of the Report's discussion of the head wounds. Since no qualifying language follows, the reader is left with the impression that the "expert opinion" is valid in associating the identifiable fragments with the wounds. Nowhere in the Report do we find the simple fact that the fragmentation of both the test bullet and the found bullet pieces is not an exclusive occurrence, as implied. The break-up observed is consistent with the normal fragmentation pattern of full-jacketed military bullets. When such bullets break apart, the core usually separates from the jacket. The Commission could have produced the same effect if it fired the bullet through a piece of masonite.
Thus, for all its claims, the Commission was able to present no credible evidence associating bullets from "Oswald's" rifle, or even military bullets in general, with the President's head wounds.
The nature of the bullet fragmentation within the President's head actually disassociates military bullets from the head wounds, and strongly suggests that some type of sporting ammunition struck the head. . . .
The "Clark Panel" is describing a 6.5 mm. piece of metal that separated from the bullet upon entering the skull and became embedded in the skull at the bottom portion of the entrance wound. This, the key to the type of ammunition causing the wound, vitiates Dr. Humes's previously cited testimony that a "jacketed bullet" probably caused this entrance wound.
The bullet from which was shaved this substantial fragment upon entrance could not have been covered with a hard metal jacket such as copper alloy. Such a fragment is, in fact, a not infrequent occurrence from a lead bullet. Rowland Long, in his book The Physician and the Law, speaks of the penetration of lead bullets into the skull and asserts: "Not infrequently a collar shaped fragment of lead is shaved off around the wound of entrance and is found embedded in the surrounding scalp tissues." Criminologist Lemoyne Snyder describes a similar phenomenon in his book Homicide Investigation. Forensic pathologist Dr. Halbert Fillinger explained to me the principles that rule out full-jacketed ammunition and suggest a lead bullet:
"You can appreciate the fact that a jacketed projectile is going to leave very little on the [bone] margins because
it's basically a hardened jacket, and it's designed so that it will not scrape off when it goes through a steel barrel. One can appreciate the fact that going through bone, which is not as hard as steel, may etch or scratch it, but it's not going to peel off much metal. In contrast to this a softer projectile might very well leave little metallic residues around the margins."
The Commission's case against Oswald requires full-jacketed ammunition to have been used to inflict the wounds of President Kennedy. The presence of the 6.5 mm. metallic fragment in the margin of the skull entrance wound eliminates the possibility that a full-jacketed bullet entered through this hole. Such a fragment located at that site is indicative of a lead or soft-nosed bullet. . . .
The loss of a substantial quantity of brain tissue becomes significant when we consider Dr. Humes's testimony that the X rays showed "30 or 40 tiny dustlike particle fragments" of metal in the President's head (2 H 353). Humes cautioned that the fragments that appeared to be "the size of dust particles" (2 H 359) on the X rays would actually have been smaller because "X ray pictures ... have a tendency to magnify these minute fragments somewhat in size" (2H353). Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman saw the X rays during the autopsy and provided a similar description: " ... the whole head looked like a little mass of stars, there must have been 30, 40 lights where these little pieces were so minute that they couldn't be reached" (2 H 100). . . .
Dr. Fillinger tells me that the fragments described in the President's brain were not characteristic of a military round. . . . He feels that the break-up of the bullet is more consistent with a hunting round. . . .
The size and extent of the gaping defect, and the associated fracturing and fragmentation of the skull, are indicative of a high-velocity bullet's having struck the head to produce this damage. Dr. Fillinger has expressed to me his strong feeling that the extensive fragmentation of the skull is the consequence of a high-velocity round. He stated that the presence of such massive fracturing means that "there is a tremendous amount of force applied to the skull to produce all these fractures .. .. This has been pretty well fragmented, as a matter of fact," he told me, "and again, speaks for some sort of high-velocity round". . . .
Because there was great damage to the head and extensive bullet fragmentation in the brain, Dr. Fillinger was doubtful that the Mannlicher-Carcano could have produced these wounds. "To produce this kind of effect," he told me, "you have to have a very high-velocity projectile, and the Carcano will not stand very high bolt pressures."(Presumed Guilty, 1976, pp. 113-120)
Just as a reminder, Dr. Fillinger was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. The International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners chose Dr. Fillinger to represent them on the U.S. Department of Justice's National Medicolegal Review Panel. The website Practical Homicide says this about him:
The "Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" is named in honor of Dr. Halbert Fillinger, who was a forensic pathologist. His 40 years of service included his time as Chief Medical Examiner in the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office before being elected Coroner of Montgomery County, PA.
During his career, Dr. Fillinger lectured many times at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., and all branches of the Armed Forces. Respected for his work, officials in the states of Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado sought his advice. (https://www.practicalhomicide.com/current/Vidocq.html)
BTW, Dr. Fillinger regarded the SBT as pure bunk; he said there was just no way that CE 399 could have caused all of JFK's and Connally's non-fatal wounds and emerged virtually undamaged, especially with its lands and grooves intact (Roffman, Presumed Guilty, pp. 142-144).
Anyone who still claims that JFK's head was hit with FMJ ammo needs to produce a single reputable forensic source that says that FMJ ammo striking skull bone can shatter into dozens of particles and can deposit fragments in the outer table of the skull upon penetration. World-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio said that FMJ ammo will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments; that if an x-ray shows a cluster of tiny fragments (a "lead snowstorm," as we see on JFK's skull x-rays), this "rules out" FMJ ammo; and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after entering skull, they will leave "few" 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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
For more information on the evidence that JFK's head was not hit with FMJ ammo and that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing)
-
As a follow-up, I quote more of physicist Howard Roffman's discussion on the evidence that FMJ ammo was not the ammo that hit JFK's head, and that the ammo that hit JFK's skull was traveling at a high velocity (whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle):
MTG doesn't believe that a FMJ bullet hit JFK's head even though a fragmented FMJ bullet was found in the limo. He believes a different type of ammo did hit JFK in the head even though not a trace of any other type of ammo was found in the limo or in JFK's head. I wonder what the thinks the fragmented FMJ bullet struck that caused it to fragment.
The Commission had its "expert" compare these fragments with the two similar fragments that were found in the front seat of the presidential limousine and identifiable with "Oswald's" rifle. The result of this comparison, as presented in the Report, is seemingly to associate these traceable fragments with the head wounds. The expert is quoted as follows:
"the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and the floor of the car. This to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head." (Warren Report, p. 87)
These are the last words of the Report's discussion of the head wounds. Since no qualifying language follows, the reader is left with the impression that the "expert opinion" is valid in associating the identifiable fragments with the wounds. Nowhere in the Report do we find the simple fact that the fragmentation of both the test bullet and the found bullet pieces is not an exclusive occurrence, as implied. The break-up observed is consistent with the normal fragmentation pattern of full-jacketed military bullets. When such bullets break apart, the core usually separates from the jacket. The Commission could have produced the same effect if it fired the bullet through a piece of masonite.
Thus, for all its claims, the Commission was able to present no credible evidence associating bullets from "Oswald's" rifle, or even military bullets in general, with the President's head wounds.
JFK's head was blown apart and a fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet was found in the limo with two pieces which were ballistically matched to Oswald's Carcano. It requires a person with common sense to figure out that fragmented bullet was the one that hit JFK in the head. I guess that leaves MTG out.
The nature of the bullet fragmentation within the President's head actually disassociates military bullets from the head wounds, and strongly suggests that some type of sporting ammunition struck the head. . . .
This is where MTG pretends he's an expert on ballistics.
The "Clark Panel" is describing a 6.5 mm. piece of metal that separated from the bullet upon entering the skull and became embedded in the skull at the bottom portion of the entrance wound. This, the key to the type of ammunition causing the wound, vitiates Dr. Humes's previously cited testimony that a "jacketed bullet" probably caused this entrance wound.
The bullet from which was shaved this substantial fragment upon entrance could not have been covered with a hard metal jacket such as copper alloy. Such a fragment is, in fact, a not infrequent occurrence from a lead bullet. Rowland Long, in his book The Physician and the Law, speaks of the penetration of lead bullets into the skull and asserts: "Not infrequently a collar shaped fragment of lead is shaved off around the wound of entrance and is found embedded in the surrounding scalp tissues." Criminologist Lemoyne Snyder describes a similar phenomenon in his book Homicide Investigation. Forensic pathologist Dr. Halbert Fillinger explained to me the principles that rule out full-jacketed ammunition and suggest a lead bullet:
"You can appreciate the fact that a jacketed projectile is going to leave very little on the [bone] margins because
it's basically a hardened jacket, and it's designed so that it will not scrape off when it goes through a steel barrel. One can appreciate the fact that going through bone, which is not as hard as steel, may etch or scratch it, but it's not going to peel off much metal. In contrast to this a softer projectile might very well leave little metallic residues around the margins."
And yet a fragmented FMJ bullet was found inside the limo. An inconvenient truth for MTG for which he seems to have no explanation.
The Commission's case against Oswald requires full-jacketed ammunition to have been used to inflict the wounds of President Kennedy. The presence of the 6.5 mm. metallic fragment in the margin of the skull entrance wound eliminates the possibility that a full-jacketed bullet entered through this hole. Such a fragment located at that site is indicative of a lead or soft-nosed bullet. . . .
MTG continues to pretend he is an expert on ballistics. It's quite entertaining when he does this.
The loss of a substantial quantity of brain tissue becomes significant when we consider Dr. Humes's testimony that the X rays showed "30 or 40 tiny dustlike particle fragments" of metal in the President's head (2 H 353). Humes cautioned that the fragments that appeared to be "the size of dust particles" (2 H 359) on the X rays would actually have been smaller because "X ray pictures ... have a tendency to magnify these minute fragments somewhat in size" (2H353). Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman saw the X rays during the autopsy and provided a similar description: " ... the whole head looked like a little mass of stars, there must have been 30, 40 lights where these little pieces were so minute that they couldn't be reached" (2 H 100). . . .
Dr. Fillinger tells me that the fragments described in the President's brain were not characteristic of a military round. . . . He feels that the break-up of the bullet is more consistent with a hunting round. . . .
No hunting rounds nor fragments of hunting rounds were found in JFK's head nor inside the limo. There was a fragmented FMJ military round found in the limo. An inconvenient fact which MTG continues to ignore.
The size and extent of the gaping defect, and the associated fracturing and fragmentation of the skull, are indicative of a high-velocity bullet's having struck the head to produce this damage. Dr. Fillinger has expressed to me his strong feeling that the extensive fragmentation of the skull is the consequence of a high-velocity round. He stated that the presence of such massive fracturing means that "there is a tremendous amount of force applied to the skull to produce all these fractures .. .. This has been pretty well fragmented, as a matter of fact," he told me, "and again, speaks for some sort of high-velocity round". . . .
Now MTG pretends to be an expert in forensic pathology.
Because there was great damage to the head and extensive bullet fragmentation in the brain, Dr. Fillinger was doubtful that the Mannlicher-Carcano could have produced these wounds. "To produce this kind of effect," he told me, "you have to have a very high-velocity projectile, and the Carcano will not stand very high bolt pressures."(Presumed Guilty, 1976, pp. 113-120)[/font]
Just as a reminder, Dr. Fillinger was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. The International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners chose Dr. Fillinger to represent them on the U.S. Department of Justice's National Medicolegal Review Panel. The website Practical Homicide says this about him:
Tell us when Dr. Fillinger examined the medical evidence.
The "Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" is named in honor of Dr. Halbert Fillinger, who was a forensic pathologist. His 40 years of service included his time as Chief Medical Examiner in the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office before being elected Coroner of Montgomery County, PA.
During his career, Dr. Fillinger lectured many times at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., and all branches of the Armed Forces. Respected for his work, officials in the states of Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado sought his advice. (https://www.practicalhomicide.com/current/Vidocq.html)
BTW, Dr. Fillinger regarded the SBT as pure bunk; he said there was just no way that CE 399 could have caused all of JFK's and Connally's non-fatal wounds and emerged virtually undamaged, especially with its lands and grooves intact (Roffman, Presumed Guilty, pp. 142-144).
Anyone who still claims that JFK's head was hit with FMJ ammo needs to produce a single reputable forensic source that says that FMJ ammo striking skull bone can shatter into dozens of particles and can deposit fragments in the outer table of the skull upon penetration. World-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio said that FMJ ammo will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments; that if an x-ray shows a cluster of tiny fragments (a "lead snowstorm," as we see on JFK's skull x-rays), this "rules out" FMJ ammo; and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after entering skull, they will leave "few" 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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
For more information on the evidence that JFK's head was not hit with FMJ ammo and that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing)
The only meaningful comparison would be a test 6.5mm FMJ round fired from a Carcano rifle into a synthetic skull filled with ballistic gel. All FMJ bullets are not alike and should not be expected to perform in a like manner. The 6.5mm is an unusual round that is not commonly in civilian use. More common FMJ bullets are .30-06 rounds which are used in a wide variety of weapons and the 5.56 NATO round, commonly used in AR-15 platforms. These bullets differ from the Carcano bullet in both diameter and velocity. On top of that, rifles are rarely used in homicides. Homicides committed with rifles using FMJ ammo are a subset of those, and homicides committed by gunshot wounds to the head using FMJ bullets fired from a rifle are an even smaller subset. Even a forensic pathologist who worked in that capacity for decades would see few if any homicides involving FMJ bullets fired into the victim's skull and likely would have seen no such homicides involving Carcano FMJ rounds. Therefore, generalizations regarding how such a round would behave when striking a victim's skull should be met with a good deal of skepticism.
-
All of the above is rendered moot by the fact that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found in the limo with two large fragments being positively matched to Oswald's rifle and a number of smaller fragments were also found. These fragments were less than the material contained by a FMJ Carcano bullet so we can safely say some of the fragments flew out of the limo.
I guess you simply lack the capacity to understand how absurd and pitiful this argument is. You just don't seem to realize that you are waving aside the known facts of forensic science regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets and are instead clinging to erroneous assumptions that are refuted by those facts.
You're assuming that the two limo fragments came from the head shot, even though the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show that the head-shot ammo produced bullet fragmentation that forensic science tells will never, ever, ever occur with FMJ ammo. Instead of judging your assumptions by forensic science, you're rejecting forensic science because it contradicts your assumptions.
Moreover, you still have not explained the fact that one of the limo fragments was deformed in a way that could not have been done by passing through a skull, with a jacket peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat and with one edge literally forming a razor edge. Nor have you explained the fact that not a single bullet fragment in any of the JFK head-shot wound ballistics tests emerged with such deformation -- not one.
Nor have you faced the fact that scientists have debunked the claim that NAA testing proved that the limo fragments came from the same ammo that Oswald allegedly used. I've documented this for you at least twice, but you just keep ignoring it.
I'm just wondering how in your mind you can dismiss these facts and dismiss what forensic science tells us about the known, documented behavior of FMJ bullets.
I notice you've simply ignored the fact that no FMJ bullet will ever "shear off" two or more fragments and deposit them on the outer table of the skull upon penetrating the skull. Even your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the 6.5 mm object cannot -- absolutely cannot -- have come from an FMJ missile and must be an artifact. You also keep ignoring the fact that two sets of optical-density measurements, consisting of thousands of data points, have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is a ghosted image placed over some smaller genuine bullet fragments.
And I see you're still struggling with basic English: Again, it's "an FMJ Carcano bullet," not "a FMJ Carcano bullet."
MTG would have us believe that a bullet struck JFK's head and disappeared without a trace. MTG apparently believes in several Magic Bullets that struck both JFK and JBC and then disappeared into thin air.
You know these are falsehoods. People can go back and read the replies wherein I have addressed these bogus arguments, and they will see that you are simply being dishonest.
The WCR scenario has none of these problems. It fully explains all the wounds to the two men with just two bullets fired from the sniper's nest, both of which are accounted for. The single bullet which struck JFK in the back, yawed upon exiting from his throat, making an elongated wound into JBC's back who was lined up perfectly to be struck by that bullet. That bullet exited from the right side of JBC's and wrist, flattening it at the base and depositing small lead fragments from the base. We know those fragments came from the base because that is the only place the lead core was exposed. That bullet then went on to make a shallow entry into JBC's thigh before working it's way out and being discovered later that day at Parkland. MTG rejects that scenario even though he has no evidence or explanation for other bullets fired from other locations, which wounds they caused, nor where they ended up. He's not alone, however. No other CT has been able to provide such an explanation over 62 years.
This stuff would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and misleading.
If a yawing bullet exited JFK's throat, how in the world was the throat wound punched inward and only about 5 mm in diameter? How could a bullet have exited JFK's throat when the damage behind and below the wound was larger than the wound itself, a textbook indicator of an entry wound, not an exit wound? How could a bullet have exited JFK's throat without at least nicking the left or right edge of the tie knot, given that we have ample photographic evidence that the tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of JFK's collar band? How could a bullet have exited JFK's throat without creating a hole in the shirt with fabric missing from it and without leaving any metallic traces in the exit defect in the shirt?
I have personally corrected you several times on the myth that Connally's back wound was "elongated." You know this is false, but you just keep repeating this lie anyway. Connally's back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head entry wound. And the wound track through Connally's chest, as Dr. Shaw explained, was narrow, so much so that the bullet pulverized at least 4 inches of rib bone while doing only minimal damage to the surrounding muscle tissue, the exact opposite of what would have happened if the bullet had been yawing. But you just keep ignoring these facts and repeating claims that you know are false.
I have "no evidence or explanation for other bullets fired from other locations"?! You know that's another lie. Here, too, people can go back and read our exchanges and see that I most certainly do have evidence of other bullets, as well as of additional bullet fragments, and of bullets fired from other locations.
"Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing)
"The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MOKXTpq1hC5UHrF-JanDjQvzk2q0HvRF/view?usp=sharing)
"Ten Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view?usp=sharing)
-
I guess you simply lack the capacity to understand how absurd and pitiful this argument is. You just don't seem to realize that you are waving aside the known facts of forensic science regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets and are instead clinging to erroneous assumptions that are refuted by those facts.
What the hell do you know about forensic science?
-
What the hell do you know about forensic science?
Is this supposed to be some kind of answer to the point that forensic science tells us that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of fragments after striking skull bone and that on the "rare" occasions when they fragment at all they will leave only a few fragments?
I actually know quite a bit about forensic science. Unlike you, I've taken the time to read a number of handbooks on forensic science, such as Vincent DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds, Malcolm Dodd's Terminal Ballistics, DiMaio and Suzanna Dana's Handbook of Forensic Pathology, and Russell Fisher and Charles Petty's Forensic Pathology: A Handbook for Pathologists, along with many articles on bullet behavior.
It's just this simple: If JFK's head had been hit by FMJ ammo, the autopsy skull x-rays would only show a few bullet fragments, just as we see in the released x-rays of the skulls from the WC's head-shot wound ballistics test. If FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the autopsy skull x-rays would not show a cluster of dozens of tiny fragments. If FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head in the rear, the autopsy skull x-rays would not show any fragments embedded in the rear outer table of the skull. Not on this planet anyway.
Finally, it is worth noting once again that in your whacky theory of the shooting, two FMJ bullets hit JFK, with one of them emerging virtually undamaged, with its lands and grooves intact, and with a loss of no more than 4 grains of its substance after allegedly penetrating seven layers of skin, smashing 4-5 inches of rib bone, and shattering a distal radius bone, while the other one shatters into dozens of metal particles, leaves a number of measurable fragments, and produces two sizable fragments after transiting a human skull.
-
I guess you simply lack the capacity to understand how absurd and pitiful this argument is. You just don't seem to realize that you are waving aside the known facts of forensic science regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets and are instead clinging to erroneous assumptions that are refuted by those facts.
You have never given us an indication you know the first thing about forensic science even though you keep pretending you do.
-
Finally, it is worth noting once again that in your whacky theory of the shooting, two FMJ bullets hit JFK, with one of them emerging virtually undamaged, with its lands and grooves intact, and with a loss of no more than 4 grains of its substance after allegedly penetrating seven layers of skin, smashing 4-5 inches of rib bone, and shattering a distal radius bone, while the other one shatters into dozens of metal particles, leaves a number of measurable fragments, and produces two sizable fragments after transiting a human skull.
I find it comical that you would think two bullets that struck different body parts in different ways should end up sustaining similar damage. A car that slides sideways into a guard rail is going to look quite a bit different than one the smashes head on into a tree.
MTG finds it incredulous that one bullet was shattered while one remained intact yet we have evidence that is exactly what happened. I wonder how he explains that.
-
MG: [Quoting physicist Howard Roffman]
The loss of a substantial quantity of brain tissue becomes significant when we consider Dr. Humes's testimony that the x-rays showed "30 or 40 tiny dustlike particle fragments" of metal in the President's head (2 H 353). Humes cautioned that the fragments that appeared to be "the size of dust particles" (2 H 359) on the x-rays would actually have been smaller because "x-ray pictures ... have a tendency to magnify these minute fragments somewhat in size" (2H353). Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman saw the x-rays during the autopsy and provided a similar description: " ... the whole head looked like a little mass of stars, there must have been 30, 40 lights where these little pieces were so minute that they couldn't be reached" (2 H 100). . . .
Dr. Fillinger tells me that the fragments described in the President's brain were not characteristic of a military round. . . . He feels that the break-up of the bullet is more consistent with a hunting round. . . .
The size and extent of the gaping defect, and the associated fracturing and fragmentation of the skull, are indicative of a high-velocity bullet's having struck the head to produce this damage. Dr. Fillinger has expressed to me his strong feeling that the extensive fragmentation of the skull is the consequence of a high-velocity round. He stated that the presence of such massive fracturing means that "there is a tremendous amount of force applied to the skull to produce all these fractures .. .. This has been pretty well fragmented, as a matter of fact," he told me, "and again, speaks for some sort of high-velocity round". . . .
Because there was great damage to the head and extensive bullet fragmentation in the brain, Dr. Fillinger was doubtful that the Mannlicher-Carcano could have produced these wounds. "To produce this kind of effect," he told me, "you have to have a very high-velocity projectile, and the Carcano will not stand very high bolt pressures."(Presumed Guilty, 1976, pp. 113-120)
Just as a reminder, Dr. Fillinger was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. The International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners chose Dr. Fillinger to represent them on the U.S. Department of Justice's National Medicolegal Review Panel. The website Practical Homicide says this about him:
The "Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" is named in honor of Dr. Halbert Fillinger, who was a forensic pathologist. His 40 years of service included his time as Chief Medical Examiner in the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office before being elected Coroner of Montgomery County, PA.
During his career, Dr. Fillinger lectured many times at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., and all branches of the Armed Forces. Respected for his work, officials in the states of Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado sought his advice. (https://www.practicalhomicide.com/current/Vidocq.html)
BTW, Dr. Fillinger regarded the SBT as pure bunk; he said there was just no way that CE 399 could have caused all of JFK's and Connally's non-fatal wounds and emerged virtually undamaged, especially with its lands and grooves intact (Roffman, Presumed Guilty, pp. 142-144).
JC: Now MTG pretends to be an expert in forensic pathology.
Huh? I was quoting a physicist who was discussing information he obtained directly from a renowned forensic pathologist when he interviewed him.
Tell us when Dr. Fillinger examined the medical evidence.
This is yet another lame dodge. Dr. Fillinger did not need to examine the medical evidence at the National Archives to comment on Humes's and Kellerman's WC testimony about the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays, and to comment on the fragmentation of the skull described by the autopsy doctors in their WC testimony and illustrated in the WC's two wound diagrams of the exit wound (CE 386 and CE 388). If he had examined the skull x-rays at the Archives, he would have seen the 30-40 tiny fragments that Humes and Kellerman described; and if he had examined the skull x-rays and autopsy photos at the Archives, he would have seen the skull damage that the autopsy doctors described and that the WC's wound diagrams illustrated.
So, now, what is your answer to Dr. Fillinger's point that FMJ ammo, especially FMJ ammo that was not traveling at a high velocity, would not have shattered into 30-40 tiny fragments and would not have caused the kind of extensive damage that was done to JFK's skull?
Notice that Dr. Fillinger's observations fit perfectly with Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observations about the behavior of FMJ bullets. Just to refresh your memory, once again, here's what Dr. DiMaio said on the subject:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Again, did you catch that? Let's review: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment when they penetrate bone, they will only leave a "few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
On a side note, I trust you're aware that experts from both sides have described the cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments seen on the JFK skull x-rays as a "lead snowstorm."
The ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.
-
Huh? I was quoting a physicist who was discussing information he obtained directly from a renowned forensic pathologist when he interviewed him.
This is yet another lame dodge. Dr. Fillinger did not need to examine the medical evidence at the National Archives to comment on Humes's and Kellerman's WC testimony about the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays, and to comment on the fragmentation of the skull described by the autopsy doctors in their WC testimony and illustrated in the WC's two wound diagrams of the exit wound (CE 386 and CE 388). If he had examined the skull x-rays at the Archives, he would have seen the 30-40 tiny fragments that Humes and Kellerman described; and if he had examined the skull x-rays and autopsy photos at the Archives, he would have seen the skull damage that the autopsy doctors described and that the WC's wound diagrams illustrated.
So, now, what is your answer to Dr. Fillinger's point that FMJ ammo, especially FMJ ammo that was not traveling at a high velocity, would not have shattered into 30-40 tiny fragments and would not have caused the kind of extensive damage that was done to JFK's skull?
Notice that Dr. Fillinger's observations fit perfectly with Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observations about the behavior of FMJ bullets. Just to refresh your memory, once again, here's what Dr. DiMaio said on the subject:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Again, did you catch that? Let's review: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment when they penetrate bone, they will only leave a "few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
On a side note, I trust you're aware that experts from both sides have described the cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments seen on the JFK skull x-rays as a "lead snowstorm."
The ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.
One question. How many instances of a FMJ Carcano bullet fragmenting has Dr. Fillinger observed, because those are the only ones pertinent to this case. Each FMJ bullet has unique characteristics based on factors such as bullet construction, shape, velocity, etc. It makes no sense to make a blanket statement regarding how all FMJ bullets will shatter. Given the rarity of FMJ bullets, it would not be surprising at all if Fillinger had never seen an example of a fragmented FMJ bullet.
-
The JFK brain matter that contained this trail of fine small particles was not preserved nor were those tiny particles ever removed and examined to see if they could be matched to 6.5 mm MC ammo. Just coincidence?
-
The JFK brain matter that contained this trail of fine small particles was not preserved nor were those tiny particles ever removed and examined to see if they could be matched to 6.5 mm MC ammo. Just coincidence?
Actually, fragments from the brain were compared to the fragments found inside the limo and fragments from JBC's wrist were compared to CE399, both by the FBI in 1964 and by Dr. Vincent Guinn for the HSCA in 1977. Ken Rahn wrote an excellent article about it. Rather than put my own spin on what those tests did or didn't prove, I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_JFK_assassination.html
-
The JFK brain matter that contained this trail of fine small particles was not preserved nor were those tiny particles ever removed and examined to see if they could be matched to 6.5 mm MC ammo. Just coincidence?
Ditto for the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the rear outer table of the skull visible on the lateral x-rays. The autopsy doctors could not have missed this fragment, but they ignored it because they knew they couldn't associate it with the rear head entry wound. Sibert and O'Neill noted the fragment in their report on the autopsy, but Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report.
The fragment is 9 cm above the rear head entry wound in the occiput and 1 cm below the phantom cowlick entry wound above the lambda in the parietal bone. The fragment doesn't fit with either entry site. Dr. Russell Fisher told Howard Donahue that he and the other Clark Panel members believed the fragment was a ricochet fragment. That is the only rational, scientifically plausible explanation.
For many years, WC defenders gleefully cited Dr. Vincent Guinn's 1977 NAA test. Guinn claimed that the test results showed that five JFKA bullet fragments came from just two bullets and that those two bullets came from the same batch of bullets that Oswald allegedly used, which in turn seemed to constitute conclusive scientific evidence for the single-bullet theory. However, Guinn's NAA claims were destroyed 20 years ago, first in 2006 by scientists Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, and again in 2007 by scientists Cliff Spiegelman, William Tobin, William James, Simon Sheather, and D. Max Roundhill.
This was, and remains, historic because if the five fragments came from three or more bullets, instead of just two, that would mean a second gunman's bullet must have hit JFK, as the scientists themselves explained.
So convincing were the refutations of Guinn's NAA findings that former HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey denounced Guinn's NAA research as "junk science." Blakey had been deeply impressed with Guinn's NAA findings when they were presented to him in 1977. In fact, he leaked them to the press early in 1978 as decisive proof of Oswald's guilt. But, to his credit, when Blakey read the 2006 and 2007 refutations, he repudiated Guinn's NAA claims.
Summary of Randich and Grant's article in the Journal of Forensic Sciences
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict
"Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?" (Spiegelman, Tobin, James, Sheather, and Roundhill)
https://share.google/dfrci1tNxtQrbGHTz
-
Huh? I was quoting a physicist who was discussing information he obtained directly from a renowned forensic pathologist when he interviewed him.
This is yet another lame dodge. Dr. Fillinger did not need to examine the medical evidence at the National Archives to comment on Humes's and Kellerman's WC testimony about the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays, and to comment on the fragmentation of the skull described by the autopsy doctors in their WC testimony and illustrated in the WC's two wound diagrams of the exit wound (CE 386 and CE 388). If he had examined the skull x-rays at the Archives, he would have seen the 30-40 tiny fragments that Humes and Kellerman described; and if he had examined the skull x-rays and autopsy photos at the Archives, he would have seen the skull damage that the autopsy doctors described and that the WC's wound diagrams illustrated.
Why of course. Who needs to see the stinking medical evidence when second hand accounts are available. The FPP did see all the medical evidence and they concurred with the autopsy conclusion that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. That finding was unanimous. But we should disregard that because of a conclusion by Fillinger based on what he read from Humes's and Kellerman's WC testimony. Do you have any idea how laughable that is?
So, now, what is your answer to Dr. Fillinger's point that FMJ ammo, especially FMJ ammo that was not traveling at a high velocity, would not have shattered into 30-40 tiny fragments and would not have caused the kind of extensive damage that was done to JFK's skull?
If he had never seen a case of what a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet does when it strikes a skull, his observations are nothing more than educated guesses.
Notice that Dr. Fillinger's observations fit perfectly with Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observations about the behavior of FMJ bullets. Just to refresh your memory, once again, here's what Dr. DiMaio said on the subject:
Again, I have to remind you that not all FMJ ammo is the same. They have different shapes, constructions, velocities, etc., all of which will impact what happens to the bullet when it strikes a hard surface like a human skull. FMJ bullets come in a wide variety of shapes, calibers, velocities, etc. It is ludicrous to assume they will all fragment in the same manner when striking a human skull.
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Again, did you catch that? Let's review: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment when they penetrate bone, they will only leave a "few" fragments. And (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
On a side note, I trust you're aware that experts from both sides have described the cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments seen on the JFK skull x-rays as a "lead snowstorm."
So? [quote[
The ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.
[/quote]
An idiotic, statement made by an .....well, I don't need to say it.
-
I find it comical that you would think two bullets that struck different body parts in different ways should end up sustaining similar damage. A car that slides sideways into a guard rail is going to look quite a bit different than one the smashes head on into a tree.
This is monkey-brain illogic and silliness. Good grief. CE 399 supposedly shattered the right distal radius bone, one of the strongest bones in the body, after supposedly smashing at least 4 inches of rib bone while traveling faster than the speed of sound in both cases. And you comically, childishly compare this to a car sliding sideways into a single obstacle, a guard rail no less. A retarded teenager wouldn't float such an absurd, bogus analogy.
The other half of your analogy is just as bad and silly. A tree is many, many times stronger than skull bone, and no car is constructed even remotely similarly to an FMJ bullet, nor is any car going to hit a tree while traveling faster than the speed of sound.
You simply refuse to face the fact that in every single SBT wound ballistics test ever done, even tests that were rigged as much as possible in the SBT's favor, the test bullets either were unable to do the required damage or emerged with much more deformity than CE 399.
You also simply refuse to face the fact that bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same damage as CE 399 or with more damage than CE 399, and that even bullets that merely transited 12 inches of ballistics gelatin, without hitting rib bone in the process, either failed to leave the wrist bone with enough energy to penetrate the simulated thigh or failed to leave the wrist bone at all.
You keep falsely assuming that the bullet that hit Connally's back was tumbling when it struck, even though you know this is false from the modest width of the back wound and from the narrow wound path through Connally's chest. You won't admit any fact that refutes you theory.
The fact that Connally's entry wound was only 1.5 cm wide indicates the bullet hit at a slightly horizontal angle. If the bullet had been markedly yawing, the entry wound would have been much larger, which is why all of your fellow SBT believers who claim the bullet hit while markedly yawing misleadingly cite the post-surgery size of 3.0 cm for the wound. And if the bullet had been tumbling through Connally's chest, it most certainly would have created a much wider wound path than the narrow path that Dr. Shaw described.
In another reply you said, "The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways." Really? Well, if CE 399 supposedly hit the wrist bone while traveling sideways, how is it that the entry wound on the wrist was only 2 cm long? CE 399 is 3.04 cm long? Huh?
MTG finds it incredulous that one bullet was shattered while one remained intact yet we have evidence that is exactly what happened. I wonder how he explains that.
You have zero evidence that "this is exactly what happened." You have no test evidence. You have no forensic evidence. You have no eyewitness evidence -- indeed, Connally himself adamantly insisted that he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets and that he was not hit before Z229. You have no photographic evidence -- indeed, the Zapruder film proves to anyone not legally blind or brainwashed that JFK was hit long before Connally was hit, and that Connally was not hit until Z234. You have nothing but ridiculous speculation that was cooked up by a WC lawyer in order to avoid having to admit there was more than one gunman, and that speculation was so specious that even three of the seven members of the WC rejected it.
You have spent several days now doing nothing but waffling, ducking, dodging, and lying around the fact that we know from long-established forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone, much less "shear off" small fragments into the outer table of the skull upon penetration. The WC's own head-shot wound ballistics test confirmed these facts, as we see from the released x-rays of the skulls from the test. The Failure Analysis head-shot wound ballistics test also confirmed this fact -- indeed, in the Failure Analysis test, not a single one of the FMJ bullets even fragmented after striking skull bone.
You've also danced and ducked around the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the bullet indicated by the skull damage has said the bullet was traveling at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said this. The Rockefeller Commission medical panel said this. The HSCA FPP's report assumed that the ammo fired at JFK was high-velocity ammo (e.g., 7 HSCA 175). Two of the HSCA FPP's radiology experts said high-velocity ammo was used. Dr. Fillinger, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Robertson, among other outside experts, have said this. You can't cite a single expert who has said the massive skull damage was not done by high-velocity ammo, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.
For any newcomers to this thread, the core problem here is that the ammo that hit JFK's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments while also depositing small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, depositing two fragments just behind and above the right orbit at the other end of the skull, and depositing one lone fragment on the left side of the skull, as seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The skull x-rays show a large cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments, often described as a "lead snowstorm," in the right-frontal region.
However, we know from forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever behave like this, that they will never fragment like this. I will once again quote world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, who pointed out that if an x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment when striking skull bone, they will only leave a "few" 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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
-
This is monkey-brain illogic and silliness. Good grief. CE 399 supposedly shattered the right distal radius bone, one of the strongest bones in the body, after supposedly smashing at least 4 inches of rib bone while traveling faster than the speed of sound in both cases. And you comically, childishly compare this to a car sliding sideways into a single obstacle, a guard rail no less. A retarded teenager wouldn't float such an absurd, bogus analogy.
I'll try to dumb this down for you as best I can. Two similar objects striking different objects in different ways at different velocities are going to sustain dissimilar damage.
The other half of your analogy is just as bad and silly. A tree is many, many times stronger than skull bone, and no car is constructed even remotely similarly to an FMJ bullet, nor is any car going to hit a tree while traveling faster than the speed of sound.
I dumbed it down as best I could for you. If you still don't understand, find a 5th grader to explain it to you.
You simply refuse to face the fact that in every single SBT wound ballistics test ever done, even tests that were rigged as much as possible in the SBT's favor, the test bullets either were unable to do the required damage or emerged with much more deformity than CE 399.
You also simply refuse to face the fact that bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same damage as CE 399 or with more damage than CE 399, and that even bullets that merely transited 12 inches of ballistics gelatin, without hitting rib bone in the process, either failed to leave the wrist bone with enough energy to penetrate the simulated thigh or failed to leave the wrist bone at all.
You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that a shooting can be perfectly replicated.
You keep falsely assuming that the bullet that hit Connally's back was tumbling when it struck, even though you know this is false from the modest width of the back wound and from the narrow wound path through Connally's chest. You won't admit any fact that refutes you theory.
If the bullet that hit JBC's back was not yawing, it would not have produced the elongated wound that it did. If it had not struck JFK first, it would have produced an entry wound similar to JFK's back wound.
The fact that Connally's entry wound was only 1.5 cm wide indicates the bullet hit at a slightly horizontal angle. If the bullet had been markedly yawing, the entry wound would have been much larger, which is why all of your fellow SBT believers who claim the bullet hit while markedly yawing misleadingly cite the post-surgery size of 3.0 cm for the wound. And if the bullet had been tumbling through Connally's chest, it most certainly would have created a much wider wound path than the narrow path that Dr. Shaw described.
Slightly horizontal? Is that like being slightly pregnant?
In another reply you said, "The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways." Really? Well, if CE 399 supposedly hit the wrist bone while traveling sideways, how is it that the entry wound on the wrist was only 2 cm long? CE 399 is 3.04 cm long? Huh?
Because it was not perfectly perpendicular to the flight of the bullet. Not a hard concept to grasp for most people.
You have zero evidence that "this is exactly what happened." You have no test evidence. You have no forensic evidence. You have no eyewitness evidence -- indeed, Connally himself adamantly insisted that he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets and that he was not hit before Z229. You have no photographic evidence -- indeed, the Zapruder film proves to anyone not legally blind or brainwashed that JFK was hit long before Connally was hit, and that Connally was not hit until Z234. You have nothing but ridiculous speculation that was cooked up by a WC lawyer in order to avoid having to admit there was more than one gunman, and that speculation was so specious that even three of the seven members of the WC rejected it.
There is ample forensic evidence and test evidence to support the SBT. As for an eyewitness, would you expect there to be a witness who said "I saw the bullet that left JFK's throat and it went right into Connally's back."?
JBC rejected the SBT because he knew he had been hit by the second shot and he had been led to believe JFK had been hit by the first shot. He had no direct knowledge whether JFK had been hit by the first or second shot.
You have spent several days now doing nothing but waffling, ducking, dodging, and lying around the fact that we know from long-established forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone, much less "shear off" small fragments into the outer table of the skull upon penetration. The WC's own head-shot wound ballistics test confirmed these facts, as we see from the released x-rays of the skulls from the test. The Failure Analysis head-shot wound ballistics test also confirmed this fact -- indeed, in the Failure Analysis test, not a single one of the FMJ bullets even fragmented after striking skull bone.
A true scientist would never say never, especially given the small sample size available. To the best of my knowledge, the JFKA is the only case study available as to what a 6.5 x 52mm Carcano bullet do upon hitting a human skull.
You've also danced and ducked around the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the bullet indicated by the skull damage has said the bullet was traveling at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said this. The Rockefeller Commission medical panel said this. The HSCA FPP's report assumed that the ammo fired at JFK was high-velocity ammo (e.g., 7 HSCA 175). Two of the HSCA FPP's radiology experts said high-velocity ammo was sued. Dr. Fillinger, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Robertson, among other outside experts, have said this. You can't cite a single expert who has said the massive skull damage was not done by high-velocity ammo, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.
For that to matter, there would have to be an accepted definition of what constitutes a "high velocity" round. Do you know of such a definition? The average muzzle velocity of a 6.5 x 52 mm round fired ffrom a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle is 2265 fps. That is at the low end of the range of a 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser round and lower than a .30-06 fired from a Springfield rifle or M-1 Garand. The latter two typically have muzzle velocities of around 2800 fps. The muzzle velocity of the Carcano is almost double that of most handgun ammo. Whether the Carcano rifle is a high velocity weapon or not depends on what one considers to be high velocity.
For any newcomers to this thread, the core problem here is that the ammo that hit JFK's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments while also depositing small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, depositing two fragments just behind and above the right orbit at the other end of the skull, and depositing one lone fragment on the left side of the skull, as seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The skull x-rays show a large cluster of 30-40 tiny fragments, often described as a "lead snowstorm," in the right-frontal region.
However, we know from forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever behave like this, that they will never fragment like this. I will once again quote world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, who pointed out that if an x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment when striking skull bone, they will only leave a "few" 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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that all FMJ ammo behaves the same way. The only case studies that are relevant are ones involving a 6.5 x 52mm round fired into a human skull. Do you know of any such case studies or is the JFKA the only one we have?
-
In October of 1964, Frazier acknowledged that the rifle was in the bag when he signed a notarized affidavit stating that his car is the car which transported the weapon that morning.
Still using those fake "affidavits"?
You must really be desperate. :D
-
Actually, fragments from the brain were compared to the fragments found inside the limo and fragments from JBC's wrist were compared to CE399, both by the FBI in 1964 and by Dr. Vincent Guinn for the HSCA in 1977. Ken Rahn wrote an excellent article about it. Rather than put my own spin on what those tests did or didn't prove, I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_JFK_assassination.html
Oh my goodness. Once again you are decades behind the information curve. How, just how, can you not know that Guinn's 1977 NAA claims were refuted 20 years ago? How did you miss this news?
Guinn's NAA claims were first refuted in 2006 by two scientists, Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Several more scientists refuted Guinn's NAA claims the following year in an article published in The Annals of Applied Statistics.
Here are links to their articles:
"Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?" (Spiegelman, Tobin, James, Sheather, Wexler, and Roundhill) (2007)
https://share.google/dfrci1tNxtQrbGHTz
"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives" (Randich and Grant) (2006)
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc890664/m2/1/high_res_d/900118.pdf
Summary of Randich and Grant's article in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (2006)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict
I quote from the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Sheather-Wexler-Roundhill article:
Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets."
In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported.
We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments.
FYI, a little bit about the scientists who debunked Guinn's NAA claims:
-- W. M. Tobin was a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International.
-- Clifford Spiegelman was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics.
-- Simon Sheather headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M and won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and is now a visiting professor of statistics at the University of Kentucky.
-- William D. James was a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University and published several studies on NAA testing in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
-- D. M. Roundhill was a chemist with Chemical Consulting and published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
-- Erik Randich at the time was a forensics consultant and metallurgist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
-- Patrick Grant is an analytical chemist who has been a staff member at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 1983, has authored or coauthored more than 120 peer-reviewed scientific publications, and has been a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences since 1999 and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences since 2003.
-
Oh my goodness. Once again you are decades behind the information curve. How, just how, can you not know that Guinn's 1977 NAA claims were refuted 20 years ago? How did you miss this news?
I guess MTG didn't bother to read my words, "I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.". He automatically assumed I was promoting Dr. Guinn's findings as proof positive and then made his typical knee jerk reaction.
Guinn's NAA claims were first refuted in 2006 by two scientists, Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Several more scientists refuted Guinn's NAA claims the following year in an article published in The Annals of Applied Statistics.
Here are links to their articles:
"Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?" (Spiegelman, Tobin, James, Sheather, Wexler, and Roundhill) (2007)
https://share.google/dfrci1tNxtQrbGHTz
"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives" (Randich and Grant) (2006)
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc890664/m2/1/high_res_d/900118.pdf
Summary of Randich and Grant's article in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (2006)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict
I quote from the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Sheather-Wexler-Roundhill article:
Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets."
In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported.
We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments.
FYI, a little bit about the scientists who debunked Guinn's NAA claims:
-- W. M. Tobin was a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International.
-- Clifford Spiegelman was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics.
-- Simon Sheather headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M and won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and is now a visiting professor of statistics at the University of Kentucky.
-- William D. James was a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University and published several studies on NAA testing in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
-- D. M. Roundhill was a chemist with Chemical Consulting and published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
-- Erik Randich at the time was a forensics consultant and metallurgist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
-- Patrick Grant is an analytical chemist who has been a staff member at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 1983, has authored or coauthored more than 120 peer-reviewed scientific publications, and has been a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences since 1999 and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences since 2003.
MTG just assumed I wasn't aware of the fact that Guinn's tests weren't proof positive that the fragments came from the recovered bullets. The fact that it was theoretically possible that the fragments could have come from different bullets doesn't change the fact the matching is still probative. It would have been far more significant if the fragments and bullets didn't match. But of course, that isn't the case. It would be a most amazing coincidence if the fragments and bullets had the same metallurgical content if the bullets didn't come from the bullets they were compared to. CT fanatics never bother to ask themselves what the likelihood that the fragments matched the bullets if the fragments had not come from the recovered bullets but had come from other bullets that somehow disappeared and were never recovered. 99% probability isn't good enough for CT fanatics. If something isn't 100% conclusive, it has no evidentiary value. This is what happens when one refuses to apply common sense to the available evidence.
Yes, it is theoretically possible the fragments, by coincidence, could have matched the bullets even if they didn't come from the recovered bullets which is why I made the statement that people could judge the article for themselves. That would be a truly remarkable coincidence. Given the fact the metallurgical content of the fragments matched that of the recovered bullets and that no other bullets were recovered, a reasonable person would conclude the fragments came from the recovered bullets. Common sense is not a trait necessary to being a JFKA conspiracy fanatic. In fact, common sense is a detriment to their chosen beliefs.
-
MG: The fact that Connally's entry wound was only 1.5 cm wide indicates the bullet hit at a slightly horizontal angle. If the bullet had been markedly yawing, the entry wound would have been much larger, which is why all of your fellow SBT believers who claim the bullet hit while markedly yawing misleadingly cite the post-surgery size of 3.0 cm for the wound. And if the bullet had been tumbling through Connally's chest, it most certainly would have created a much wider wound path than the narrow path that Dr. Shaw described.[/size]
JC: Slightly horizontal? Is that like being slightly pregnant?
LOL! Are you really just a child? What kind of nonsense is this? I have to wonder about your level of intelligence to make such an argument. Anyway, no, slightly horizontal is nothing like being slightly pregnant. Bullet angles are not an all-or-nothing proposition. Bullets can strike at a wide range of horizontal angles, from very slight to slight to moderate to sharp. Bullets can also yaw by a wide range of degrees, from 1 degree upward. The fact that you need this explained to you says much about your credibility.
The bullet that struck Connally's back must have done so at a slightly horizontal angle or while slightly yawing because the wound path through Connally was not very wide but surprisingly narrow, as Dr. Shaw explained. Again, a bullet striking in this manner could have easily created a 1.5 x 0.8 cm entry wound, virtually identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound (1.5 x 0.6 cm), which in turn explains the surprisingly narrow wound path through Connally's chest.
To believe your whacky theory, we'd have to assume that your supposedly sideways-streaking bullet magically straightened out almost completely a few milliseconds after penetrating the back so that it could create a narrow wound path through Connally's chest.
-
LOL! Are you really just a child? What kind of nonsense is this? I have to wonder about your level of intelligence to make such an argument. Anyway, no, slightly horizontal is nothing like being slightly pregnant. Bullet angles are not an all-or-nothing proposition. Bullets can strike at a wide range of horizontal angles, from very slight to slight to moderate to sharp. Bullets can also yaw by a wide range of degrees, from 1 degree upward. The fact that you need this explained to you says much about your credibility.
So tell us where a bullet could have been fired from which would have produced the angled entry into JBC's back.
They's be throwing snowballs in hell before I need you to explain anything to me.
The bullet that struck Connally's back must have done so at a slightly horizontal angle or while slightly yawing because the wound path through Connally was not very wide but surprisingly narrow, as Dr. Shaw explained.
Just what would have caused the bullet to yaw if it had not struck someone or something first?
Again, a bullet striking in this manner could have easily created a 1.5 x 0.8 cm entry wound, virtually identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound (1.5 x 0.6 cm), which in turn explains the surprisingly narrow wound path through Connally's chest.
We still need an explanation for where such a bullet could have been fired from or what caused it to yaw. While you're at it, see if you can figure out why a bullet entering at that angle wouldn't have continued through to the left side of JBC's torso instead of exiting from the right side as it did.
To believe your whacky theory, we'd have to assume that your supposedly sideways-streaking bullet magically straightened out almost completely a few milliseconds after penetrating the back so that it could create a narrow wound path through Connally's chest.
I guess the concept of a tumbling bullet escapes you. The orientation of such a bullet is going to be constantly changing. The long axis of the bullet will go from parallel to the direction of travel, to perpendicular and everywhere in between.
-
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
LOL! Are you really just a child? What kind of nonsense is this? I have to wonder about your level of intelligence to make such an argument. Anyway, no, slightly horizontal is nothing like being slightly pregnant. Bullet angles are not an all-or-nothing proposition. Bullets can strike at a wide range of horizontal angles, from very slight to slight to moderate to sharp. Bullets can also yaw by a wide range of degrees, from 1 degree upward. The fact that you need this explained to you says much about your credibility.
JC: They's be throwing snowballs in hell before I need you to explain anything to me.
Humm, well, as we have seen, I had to explain to you that, unlike pregnancy, bullet angles are never an all-or-nothing proposition, because you made the cringe-worthy argument that "slightly horizontal" is like "slightly pregnant," a bogus analogy that not even a retarded teenager would make.
This was as bad and discrediting as your jaw-dropping argument from a few days earlier in which you compared a supersonic bullet hitting an object sideways with a car "sliding sideways into a guard rail." It would be hard to imagine a more blundering, bogus, and unintelligent analogy.
JC: So tell us where a bullet could have been fired from which would have produced the angled entry into JBC's back.
Are you seriously asking this question in 2026? Have you never seen a 1963 picture of Dealey Plaza? Are you truly unable to conceive of a shooting location that would have produced a slightly horizontal angle of impact on Connally's back? Really?
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
The bullet that struck Connally's back must have done so at a slightly horizontal angle or while slightly yawing because the wound path through Connally was not very wide but surprisingly narrow, as Dr. Shaw explained.
JC: Just what would have caused the bullet to yaw if it had not struck someone or something first?
I think the bullet could have simply struck at a slightly horizontal angle, but, anyway, bullets can yaw for a number of reasons that don't involve hitting something first. Bullets can yaw because of muzzle blast turbulence (when high-pressure propellant gases escape the muzzle unevenly, they can push against the base of the bullet as it clears the barrel and induce a slight yaw), aerodynamic forces acting on an asymmetrical center of mass (which can happen with spitzer bullets), and crosswinds inducing gyroscopic precession (the wind was gusting off and on in the plaza).
You keep avoiding the key point that a 1.5-cm-wide wound could not have been caused by a bullet traveling sideways unless the bullet had been only 1.4 to 1.5 cm in width. Oswald's alleged ammo was twice that length.
Also, a bullet that was markedly yawing, but not yawing quite enough to hit sideways (i.e., not 90 degrees), would not have caused a wound that was only 1.5 cm in width. A markedly yawing bullet would have created a wound that was well over 2.0 cm in width.
You see, these are the reasons that your fellow SBT believers here, along with Myers, Lattimer, and Posner, dishonestly (or blunderingly) cite the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. They understand that a bullet flying sideways or markedly yawing would not have made a wound that was only 1.5 in width. But you're such a fringe, poorly read SBT believer that you don't even know this much.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
Again, a bullet striking in this manner could have easily created a 1.5 x 0.8 cm entry wound, virtually identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound (1.5 x 0.6 cm), which in turn explains the surprisingly narrow wound path through Connally's chest.
JC: While you're at it, see if you can figure out why a bullet entering at that angle wouldn't have continued through to the left side of JBC's torso instead of exiting from the right side as it did.
LOL! Seriously? When passing through soft tissue, bullets can veer slightly in any direction, and they can certainly change course after they smash a rib bone. Do you ever actually stop and think about your arguments before you post them? Did you forget that the bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone after it entered the chest?
Furthermore, if we look at Z234, the frame selected by Connally himself as the moment of impact, we see his torso is turned to the right by about 10 degrees, which could explain the slight elongation of the back wound by itself, just as the fact that JFK's head rotation could explain why the rear head entry wound was only 1.5 cm in width.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
To believe your whacky theory, we'd have to assume that your supposedly sideways-streaking bullet magically straightened out almost completely a few milliseconds after penetrating the back so that it could create a narrow wound path through Connally's chest.
JC: I guess the concept of a tumbling bullet escapes you. The orientation of such a bullet is going to be constantly changing. The long axis of the bullet will go from parallel to the direction of travel, to perpendicular and everywhere in between.
Another howler. You simply ignored the point and repeated your specious theory. A bullet tumbling as you describe is not going to create a narrow wound path. Do you just lack the capacity to understand this self-evident point? Even when the chest-wound bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone, it did so while doing only minimal damage to the surrounding tissue, as Dr. Shaw noted. How can you not grasp this point?
Just go look at photos or slow-motion footage of bullets traveling through ballistics gelatin. Naturally, when the bullet is markedly yawing, it creates a wide path through the gelatin, but it creates a narrow path when it is not markedly yawing. I mean, most people would say, "Well, yeah, duh, of course!" But you keep acting like you don't understand this.
You know, when you get on here and pretend not to understand such basic, self-evident facts, you show that you're either unserious and unreliable or that you are sorely lacking in essential comprehension and reasoning skills.
-
Humm, well, as we have seen, I had to explain to you that, unlike pregnancy, bullet angles are never an all-or-nothing proposition, because you made the cringe-worthy argument that "slightly horizontal" is like "slightly pregnant," a bogus analogy that not even a retarded teenager would make.
This was as bad and discrediting as your jaw-dropping argument from a few days earlier in which you compared a supersonic bullet hitting an object sideways with a car "sliding sideways into a guard rail." It would be hard to imagine a more blundering, bogus, and unintelligent analogy.
In order to dumb it down for you any more than I did, I would have had to draw pictures for you but I don't have any crayons.
Are you seriously asking this question in 2026? Have you never seen a 1963 picture of Dealey Plaza? Are you truly unable to conceive of a shooting location that would have produced a slightly horizontal angle of impact on Connally's back? Really?
Oh, I can figure out an angle. I just want YOU to tell me where such a shot could have come from. I want you to be the one to make yourself look foolish.
I think the bullet could have simply struck at a slightly horizontal angle, but, anyway, bullets can yaw for a number of reasons that don't involve hitting something first. Bullets can yaw because of muzzle blast turbulence (when high-pressure propellant gases escape the muzzle unevenly, they can push against the base of the bullet as it clears the barrel and induce a slight yaw), aerodynamic forces acting on an asymmetrical center of mass (which can happen with spitzer bullets), and crosswinds inducing gyroscopic precession (the wind was gusting off and on in the plaza).
As the Haags demonstrated on the Nova presentation, the Carcano bullet is cylindrical in shape with a rounded noise. As such, it maintains tight contact with the inside of the barrel which gives it a tremendous amount of stability and very little yaw as it exits the muzzle. I fully expect you to now pretend you know more about ballistics than the Haags.
You keep avoiding the key point that a 1.5-cm-wide wound could not have been caused by a bullet traveling sideways unless the bullet had been only 1.4 to 1.5 cm in width. Oswald's alleged ammo was twice that length.
Now you are the one pretending yaw is either all or nothing. The bullet did not have to be traveling with its axis completely perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Also, a bullet that was markedly yawing, but not yawing quite enough to hit sideways (i.e., not 90 degrees), would not have caused a wound that was only 1.5 cm in width. A markedly yawing bullet would have created a wound that was well over 2.0 cm in width.
This is comical. A yawing bullet could produce any width up to the length of the bullet depending on the amount of yaw. /quote]
You see, these are the reasons that your fellow SBT believers here, along with Myers, Lattimer, and Posner, dishonestly (or blunderingly) cite the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. They understand that a bullet flying sideways or markedly yawing would not have made a wound that was only 1.5 in width. But you're such a fringe, poorly read SBT believer that you don't even know this much. [/quote]
You really do need people to draw pictures for you so you can understand.
LOL! Seriously? When passing through soft tissue, bullets can veer slightly in any direction, and they can certainly change course after they smash a rib bone. Do you ever actually stop and think about your arguments before you post them? Did you forget that the bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone after it entered the chest?
That would be a fair point if the bullet hit bone on the way in, not the way out.
Furthermore, if we look at Z234, the frame selected by Connally himself as the moment of impact, we see his torso is turned to the right by about 10 degrees, which could explain the slight elongation of the back wound by itself, just as the fact that JFK's head rotation could explain why the rear head entry wound was only 1.5 cm in width.
You continue to pretend JBC's right arm didn't suddenly flip upward in response to the bullet striking his wrist about Z222. You seem to think the arm flip was in anticipation of the bullet hitting him about a half second later.
Another howler. You simply ignored the point and repeated your specious theory. A bullet tumbling as you describe is not going to create a narrow wound path. Do you just lack the capacity to understand this self-evident point? Even when the chest-wound bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone, it did so while doing only minimal damage to the surrounding tissue, as Dr. Shaw noted. How can you not grasp this point?
Here again, you seem to need someone to draw pictures for you to understand. The axis of a tumbling bullet is constantly changing orientation. Maybe it would help if I used smaller words.
Just go look at photos or slow-motion footage of bullets traveling through ballistics gelatin. Naturally, when the bullet is markedly yawing, it creates a wide path through the gelatin, but it creates a narrow path when it is not markedly yawing. I mean, most people would say, "Well, yeah, duh, of course!" But you keep acting like you don't understand this.
As the Haags demonstrated, a bullet passing through ballistic gel makes a wide channel, but the channel then collapses back on itself after the bullet passes. That's why they also used ballistic soap which does not collapse and maintains the full width of the channel.
You know, when you get on here and pretend not to understand such basic, self-evident facts, you show that you're either unserious and unreliable or that you are sorely lacking in essential comprehension and reasoning skills.
You pretend the silly things you propose are facts. It's the only way to support your nutty conclusions.
-
All are correct, so why did WC still framed O with no reasonable evidence? Conspiracy all the way.
-
All are correct, so why did WC still framed O with no reasonable evidence? Conspiracy all the way.
You're full of beans and your grammar sucks.
-
All are correct, so why did WC still framed O with no reasonable evidence? Conspiracy all the way.
No reasonable evidence my aching Bahookie. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the evidence and an ounce of common sense knows Oswald killed JFK. Which of those do you lack?
-
It is worth remembering that we learned in recent years that the original court reporter's transcript of J. Edgar Hoover's WC testimony recorded that Hoover said the autopsy doctors found "that the back of the skull had been practically shot off" (62-HQ-109090, Volume 1, Serial 168, p. 7 (https://substack.com/redirect/356c7cdf-740e-43eb-aa74-55ecdc3c3206?j=eyJ1IjoiMzNjdmJvIn0.S9FJN1qlLIdsY_X1QbObPuGj8eXESyv1ex3pGiSHNQo)).
This agrees with the accounts of dozens of witnesses who saw JFK's large head wound, including the accounts of the three morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the accounts of the two Parkland nurses who cleaned the large head wound and packed it with gauze, the account of the Dallas funeral worker who helped to place the body into the casket, the account of Dr. John Ebersole (the autopsy radiologist), and the account of Secret Service agent Clint Hill (who saw JFK's head wound up-close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and who viewed the wound again at the Bethesda morgue).
In fact, let's read what Hill said on this matter in his 11/30/63 report:
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. . . .
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh, and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neck line on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket. ("The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas: Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, concerning his activities and official duties on November 22, 1963; statement dated November 30, 1963," pp. 3, 5-6; CE 1024, p. 722)
Notice, too, that Hill said the back wound was about "six inches down from the neck line," exactly in the area indicated by the rear JFK clothing holes. It is hard to fathom how Hill could have "mistaken" a wound at C3/C4 (per the WC's wound diagram, CE 385) for a wound 6 inches below the neck line.
FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill, the FBI's official observers at the autopsy, likewise placed the back wound several inches below the neck line in their report on the autopsy. They even drew wound diagrams for the HSCA and again for the ARRB that showed the back wound well below the throat wound.
Hill's report is important for another reason: It indicates the autopsy continued after Sibert and O'Neill left. The physical examination part of the autopsy was completed between 11:00 PM and midnight, but the consultation phase of the autopsy continued after Sibert and O'Neill departed and was witnessed by Richard Lipsey, among others.
-
It is worth remembering that we learned in recent years that the original court reporter's transcript of J. Edgar Hoover's WC testimony recorded that Hoover said the autopsy doctors found "that the back of the skull had been practically shot off" (62-HQ-109090, Volume 1, Serial 168, p. 7 (https://substack.com/redirect/356c7cdf-740e-43eb-aa74-55ecdc3c3206?j=eyJ1IjoiMzNjdmJvIn0.S9FJN1qlLIdsY_X1QbObPuGj8eXESyv1ex3pGiSHNQo)).
Now you're citing Hoover? It would be hard to find an individual more clueless about the JFKA than Hoover. All one has to do is listen to the recordings of him briefing LBJ about facts of the shooting or read the transcripts. He didn't get much of anything right.
This agrees with the accounts of dozens of witnesses who saw JFK's large head wound, including the accounts of the three morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the accounts of the two Parkland nurses who cleaned the large head wound and packed it with gauze, the account of the Dallas funeral worker who helped to place the body into the casket, the account of Dr. John Ebersole (the autopsy radiologist), and the account of Secret Service agent Clint Hill (who saw JFK's head wound up-close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and who viewed the wound again at the Bethesda morgue).
Why do we need anyone at Parkland to describe the head wound. We can see in the Z-film the entire upper right side of his head was blown open.
In fact, let's read what Hill said on this matter in his 11/30/63 report:
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. . . .
Again, we see the flap of skull hanging down on the right side of JFK's head. That is from the side of the head. The large defect was "chiefly parietal". That's the upper right side of the head.
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh, and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neck line on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket. ("The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas: Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, concerning his activities and official duties on November 22, 1963; statement dated November 30, 1963," pp. 3, 5-6; CE 1024, p. 722)[/font]
Notice, too, that Hill said the back wound was about "six inches down from the neck line," exactly in the area indicated by the rear JFK clothing holes. It is hard to fathom how Hill could have "mistaken" a wound at C3/C4 (per the WC's wound diagram, CE 385) for a wound 6 inches below the neck line.
"the neck line" is a layman's term. Hill estimated the position of the backwound. Together, it is a very imprecise placement of the wound.
FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill, the FBI's official observers at the autopsy, likewise placed the back wound several inches below the neck line in their report on the autopsy. They even drew wound diagrams for the HSCA and again for the ARRB that showed the back wound well below the throat wound.
Why does MTG always cite the unqualified people and ignore what the qualified people have to say about the evidence?
Hill's report is important for another reason: It indicates the autopsy continued after Sibert and O'Neill left. The physical examination part of the autopsy was completed between 11:00 PM and midnight, but the consultation phase of the autopsy continued after Sibert and O'Neill departed and was witnessed by Richard Lipsey, among others.
Keep citing the bystanders and not the people conducting the autopsy.
-
We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.
-
We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.
Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.
WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.
-
Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.
Wow, that's an ugly, hateful comment, a comment that seems to voice a death wish. I'm a bit surprised the moderators didn't jump on this comment.
WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.
You keep repeating this silly, phony dodge. As I've noted before, this lame evasion denies the very reason for and value of the fields of forensic science and wound ballistics.
Are you ever going to explain the fact that the most frequently encountered bullet designs in clinical and forensic practice are FMJ bullets, lead bullets, and semi-jacketed bullets? It is hilarious that you keep pretending that most gunshot cases involving FMJ bullets happen during wartime. No, every year a sizable percentage of gunshot cases involve FMJ ammo. Gee, maybe that's why forensic sources have much to say about the behavior of FMJ bullets, just as they have much to say about the behavior of lead ammo and semi-jacketed bullets, hey?
Speaking of which, are you ever going to explain why forensic sources, such as DiMaio's internationally recognized handbook Gunshot Wounds, state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of small fragments when striking bone and that if x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo?
Are you ever going to explain why the Failure Analysis headshot wound ballistics test failed to produce a single FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments, much less an FMJ bullet that deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon penetration?
Are you ever going to explain the fact that FMJ bullets are designed not to break apart into multiple fragments in order to increase the degree of penetration? If you read forensic sources you'll learn that only FMJ bullets that are traveling at a high velocity have any chance of breaking up into multiple fragments. Humm, could this be why the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test show minimal bullet fragmentation?
Apparently you are clueless about the fact that SBT defenders cite this very fact -- i.e., that FMJ bullets are designed not to shatter in order to increase their penetrating power -- as evidence that a single FMJ bullet could penetrate seven layers of human skin, smash 4 inches of rib bone, and shatter a radius bone without losing its structure, with its lands and grooves remaining intact, and while losing less than 4 grains of its substance. Of course, they're doing so to defend an impossible scenario that goes well beyond what an FMJ bullet can endure before incurring substantial damage, as every single SBT wound ballistics test has proven.
Furthermore, you still have not explained the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head as indicated by the damage to the skull has said that the damage shows the ammo was traveling at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.
This issue of the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head is a shining example of the refusal of WC apologists to face facts. WC critics began raising this issue in the 1970s, and Howard Donahue, a court-certified firearms and ballistics experts, brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Lattimer and then Fackler tried to explain the issue with their own headshot wound-ballistics tests, but both tests failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Indeed, in Fackler's Failure Analysis test, the FMJ bullets failed to fragment at all. They suffered visible deformation, but did not fragment.
The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.
-
Wow, that's an ugly, hateful comment, a comment that seems to voice a death wish. I'm a bit surprised the moderators didn't jump on this comment.
You keep repeating this silly, phony dodge. As I've noted before, this lame evasion denies the very reason for and value of the fields of forensic science and wound ballistics.
i tried my best to explain the obvious to you but I just can't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.
Are you ever going to explain the fact that the most frequently encountered bullet designs in clinical and forensic practice are FMJ bullets, lead bullets, and semi-jacketed bullets?
No Helicopter :).
It is hilarious that you keep pretending that most gunshot cases involving FMJ bullets happen during wartime. No, every year a sizable percentage of gunshot cases involve FMJ ammo. Gee, maybe that's why forensic sources have much to say about the behavior of FMJ bullets, just as they have much to say about the behavior of lead ammo and semi-jacketed bullets, hey?
The only thing relevant to this discussion are FMJ bullets fired by rifles into skulls und yes, most of those occur during wartime. Homicides committed with rifles are a small fraction of all homicides and of those, are committed with FMJ bullets, and a still smaller fraction involve gunshot wounds to the skull. I guess you aren't bright enough to know that FMJ, bullets fired from handguns aren't going to behave like those fired from rifles.
Speaking of which, are you ever going to explain why forensic sources, such as DiMaio's internationally recognized handbook Gunshot Wounds, state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of small fragments when striking bone and that if x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo?
Why is it you never quote these sources. Why do you always give us your spin on what they say?
Are you ever going to explain why the Failure Analysis headshot wound ballistics test failed to produce a single FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments, much less an FMJ bullet that deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon penetration?
Since you don't quote these studies, i see no point in responding to your version of what these studies have concluded, given the number of times you completely misrepresent these results.
I do find it ironic that you would cite Failure Analysis given that they conclude almost four decades ago that the shots that hit JFK were fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
I was unable to find an online source for the Failure Analysis study, but in searching for it, I did come across this more recent study by Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822000949
Are you ever going to explain the fact that FMJ bullets are designed not to break apart into multiple fragments in order to increase the degree of penetration? If you read forensic sources you'll learn that only FMJ bullets that are traveling at a high velocity have any chance of breaking up into multiple fragments. Humm, could this be why the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test show minimal bullet fragmentation?
All you ever do is present your I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy conclusions. Quote a competent source if you expect me to respond.
Apparently you are clueless about the fact that SBT defenders cite this very fact -- i.e., that FMJ bullets are designed not to shatter in order to increase their penetrating power -- as evidence that a single FMJ bullet could penetrate seven layers of human skin, smash 4 inches of rib bone, and shatter a radius bone without losing its structure, with its lands and grooves remaining intact, and while losing less than 4 grains of its substance. Of course, they're doing so to defend an impossible scenario that goes well beyond what an FMJ bullet can endure before incurring substantial damage, as every single SBT wound ballistics test has proven.
You seem to get dumber with each post. you are comparing an FMJ bullet that passed through soft tissue of two torsos und tumbled before striking bone to one that struck nose first into a skull without passing through another object first.
Furthermore, you still have not explained the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head as indicated by the damage to the skull has said that the damage shows the ammo was traveling at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.
Every forensic expert who has seen the medical evidence and commented on it has concluded that JFK was shot from above end behind in the head and upper back and the only recovered bullets had been fired by Oswald's Carcano rifle, but you don't care.
This issue of the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head is a shining example of the refusal of WC apologists to face facts. WC critics began raising this issue in the 1970s, and Howard Donahue, a court-certified firearms and ballistics experts, brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Lattimer and then Fackler tried to explain the issue with their own headshot wound-ballistics tests, but both tests failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Indeed, in Fackler's Failure Analysis test, the FMJ bullets failed to fragment at all. They suffered visible deformation, but did not fragment.
And still you refuse to quote your sources.
The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.
We only have your I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy opinion on that because you steadfastly refuse to ever quote your sources. The reason for that is obvious. If you actually quoted your sources, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent their findings.
-
i tried my best to explain the obvious to you but I just can't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.
No &^%^$.
The only thing relevant to this discussion are FMJ bullets fired by rifles into skulls und yes, most of those occur during wartime. Homicides committed with rifles are a small fraction of all homicides and of those, are committed with FMJ bullets, and a still smaller fraction involve gunshot wounds to the skull. I guess you aren't bright enough to know that FMJ, bullets fired from handguns aren't going to behave like those fired from rifles.
Why is it you never quote these sources. Why do you always give us your spin on what they say?
Since you don't quote these studies, i see no point in responding to your version of what these studies have concluded, given the number of times you completely misrepresent these results.
I do find it ironic that you would cite Failure Analysis given that they conclude almost four decades ago that the shots that hit JFK were fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
I was unable to find an online source for the Failure Analysis study, but in searching for it, I did come across this more recent study by Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822000949
All you ever do is present your I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy conclusions. Quote a competent source if you expect me to respond.
You seem to get dumber with each post. you are comparing an FMJ bullet that passed through soft tissue of two torsos und tumbled before striking bone to one that struck nose first into a skull without passing through another object first.
Every forensic expert who has seen the medical evidence and commented on it has concluded that JFK was shot from above end behind in the head and upper back and the only recovered bullets had been fired by Oswald's Carcano rifle, but you don't care.
And still you refuse to quote your sources.
We only have your I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy opinion on that because you steadfastly refuse to ever quote your sources. The reason for that is obvious. If you actually quoted your sources, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent their findings.
Readers who have seen our previous exchanges on this issue will see that you are now just lying through your teeth and are continuing to simply make up nonsense, not to mention that you are acting like a rude teenager who knows he's losing the argument--and losing it badly.
They'll see that you are still ducking the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test, which show minimal bullet fragmentation. They'll see that I've quoted a number of forensic and ballistics experts on the behavior of FMJ bullets, and that you obviously have no answer for the cold, hard facts about FMJ bullet behavior.
They will find it odd that you comically accuse me of not providing sources when I have provided numerous sources (including page numbers therein) for my statements, and when you almost never provide any sources to back up your bogus claims.
They will notice that you still haven't explained the fact that every expert who has examined the medical evidence and commented on it has said the skull damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity.
If they read the 2022 Science Direct summary article that you linked (I just have to chuckle about this), they will see that the article says the JFK skull damage was done by the "high-speed impact" of a bullet--but, again, the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. They will notice that the study was purely computational and virtual and was not based on any actual JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests. They will notice that the study does not even address the known behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike skull bone. And, they will notice that not one of the four authors of that study had ever written a single article on a forensic/ballistics issue before they wrote their 2022 "ballistic analysis" of JFK's head damage.
(The four authors' previous articles deal with such subjects as the viscoelasticity of human gluteal tissue, metabolic consequences of persistence of visceral obesity and diabetes, radiation dose-dependent skin toxicity, the adhesion and invasion of renal cell carcinoma cells, strategy of robotic surgeons to exert public influence through Twitter, laser-induced thermotherapy using MR thermometry, vitamin D deficiency in orthopedic patients, cartilage chip transplantation for cartilage defects, and periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels. What happened to your phony position that only the opinions of forensic experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives count?)
They will find it especially odd that you are still claiming that "every forensic expert" who has examined and commented on the JFK medical evidence has "concluded JFK was shot from above and behind," when I've proved to you that this is not true, and when this does not even address the issue of the ammo's behavior. They will also find it quite revealing that you once again allude to Guinn's debunked NAA findings. And on and on I could go.
You see, I know that you're never going to deal with this issue in an honest, credible manner. I realize that. You've proved in spades. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and grasp and blunder in trying to explain the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.
Let me refresh your memory with quotes from Dr. DiMaio's internationally acclaimed forensic book Gunshot Wounds that I've presented to you several times now and that you just keep dodging:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
Again, did you catch that? Did you see where DiMaio said (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo?
But, of course, I'm fairly certain you'll just continue to lie, duck, dodge, grasp, and blunder about this fact.
BTW, if rifles are almost never used in gunshot cases involving headshots except in wartime, why do forensic and ballistics sources state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone? What is their basis for saying this? Huh?
I bet I know: I bet they base that statement of fact on known forensic cases. If the present is any indication of the past, then this should not be surprising. Why? Well, in 2020 and 2021 rifles were used in murders over 900 times; rifles were used 570 times in 2022 murders; rifles were used 533 times in 2023 murders, and rifles were used 401 times in 2024 murders (https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/FBI_UCR_Expanded_Homicide_Data_Table_8_Murder_Victims_by_Weapon_2020-2024-1.pdf).
If only 10% of those cases involved headshots with FMJ ammo, that would make over 230 cases involving headshots with FMJ ammo, and, again, FMJ ammo is one of the three most common types of ammo.
So you can drop your bogus claim that we have very little information on the behavior of FMJ bullets when they hit skulls. We also have the WC's, Lattimer's, and Fackler's headshot wound ballistics tests, none of which produced FMJ bullets that shattered into dozens of fragments, not to mention FMJ bullets that also deposited several small fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact, created a fragment trail disconnected from any entry wound, and magically deposited two fragments at the opposite and of the skull at least 1 inch from any fragment trail.
-
Readers who have seen our previous exchanges on this issue will see that you are now just lying through your teeth and are continuing to simply make up nonsense, not to mention that you are acting like a rude teenager who knows he's losing the argument--and losing it badly.
They'll see that you are still ducking the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test, which show minimal bullet fragmentation. They'll see that I've quoted a number of forensic and ballistics experts on the behavior of FMJ bullets, and that you obviously have no answer for the cold, hard facts about FMJ bullet behavior.
They will find it odd that you comically accuse me of not providing sources when I have provided numerous sources (including page numbers therein) for my statements, and when you almost never provide any sources to back up your bogus claims.
They will notice that you still haven't explained the fact that every expert who has examined the medical evidence and commented on it has said the skull damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity.
If they read the 2022 Science Direct summary article that you linked (I just have to chuckle about this), they will see that the article says the JFK skull damage was done by the "high-speed impact" of a bullet--but, again, the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. They will notice that the study was purely computational and virtual and was not based on any actual JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests. They will notice that the study does not even address the known behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike skull bone. And, they will notice that not one of the four authors of that study had ever written a single article on a forensic/ballistics issue before they wrote their 2022 "ballistic analysis" of JFK's head damage.
Here we go again. I have to explain what should be obvious. There is no standard definition of what constitutes a high velocity round. Without such a definition, one person or group could consider the 6.5mm Carcano round high velocity and someone else might not. It's all relative.
(The four authors' previous articles deal with such subjects as the viscoelasticity of human gluteal tissue, metabolic consequences of persistence of visceral obesity and diabetes, radiation dose-dependent skin toxicity, the adhesion and invasion of renal cell carcinoma cells, strategy of robotic surgeons to exert public influence through Twitter, laser-induced thermotherapy using MR thermometry, vitamin D deficiency in orthopedic patients, cartilage chip transplantation for cartilage defects, and periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels. What happened to your phony position that only the opinions of forensic experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives count?)
Just admit it. You're pissed because another scientific body shot down your silly arguments.
They will find it especially odd that you are still claiming that "every forensic expert" who has examined and commented on the JFK medical evidence has "concluded JFK was shot from above and behind," when I've proved to you that this is not true, and when this does not even address the issue of the ammo's behavior. They will also find it quite revealing that you once again allude to Guinn's debunked NAA findings. And on and on I could go.
You could go on and on lying because that is the only thing you're good for. I didn't even mention Guinn in any recent post and the only time I ever have was in response to one of your lame arguments. In 35 years of debating this subject online, I have never come across anyone who exhibits less integrity in his arguments than you. It speaks volumes about the weakness of your arguments that you have to lie so blatantly to make them. You are truly pathetic.
You see, I know that you're never going to deal with this issue in an honest, credible manner. I realize that. You've proved in spades. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and grasp and blunder in trying to explain the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.
The biggest liar on this or any other forum is calling me a liar.
Let me refresh your memory with quotes from Dr. DiMaio's internationally acclaimed forensic book Gunshot Wounds that I've presented to you several times now and that you just keep dodging:
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. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
Again, did you catch that? Did you see where DiMaio said (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo?
As a general rule, that's probably true. Unless he has studied cases of how a Carcano bullet reacts when striking a skull, it really isn't pertinent.
But, of course, I'm fairly certain you'll just continue to lie, duck, dodge, grasp, and blunder about this fact.
I don't need to lie to make my points. Thut's your ballgame.
BTW, if rifles are almost never used in gunshot cases involving headshots except in wartime, why do forensic and ballistics sources state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone? What is their basis for saying this? Huh?
I notice you offered nothing that refutes my statement regarding how few homicides are committed with all rifles with all types of ammo. Lots of homicides are committed with FMJ ammo. Most of them are from handguns, which aren't relevant to this discussion.
I bet I know: I bet they base that statement of fact on known forensic cases. If the present is any indication of the past, then this should not be surprising. Why? Well, in 2020 and 2021 rifles were used in murders over 900 times; rifles were used 570 times in 2022 murders; rifles were used 533 times in 2023 murders, and rifles were used 401 times in 2024 murders (https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/FBI_UCR_Expanded_Homicide_Data_Table_8_Murder_Victims_by_Weapon_2020-2024-1.pdf).
How many homicides do you think they have studied which shows what a FMJ Carcano bullet will do when striking a human skull. I only know of one case in which that happened. It is poor science to assume that all FMJ bullets will behave the same way when striking a human skull. I have no doubt you will now accuse me of dodging when in reality I'm applying critical thinking to your claims, something you should have done for yourself.
If only 10% of those cases involved headshots with FMJ ammo, that would make over 230 cases involving headshots with FMJ ammo, and, again, FMJ ammo is one of the three most common types of ammo.
I seriously doubt they have studied that many cases of FMJ RIFLE ammo and certainly not FMJ Carcano ammo which is quite rare.
So you can drop your bogus claim that we have very little information on the behavior of FMJ bullets when they hit skulls. We also have the WC's, Lattimer's, and Fackler's headshot wound ballistics tests, none of which produced FMJ bullets that shattered into dozens of fragments, not to mention FMJ bullets that also deposited several small fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact, created a fragment trail disconnected from any entry wound, and magically deposited two fragments at the opposite and of the skull at least 1 inch from any fragment trail.
You continue to fail to grasp that without case studies of FMJ Carcano ammo striking skulls, these studies have limited value in determining how such bullets will behave when striking skulls. The people who have made these observations were not addressing that question so it is understandable why they would not consider such ammo when making their general observations. Without specific studies of the type of ammo used by LHO, it is poor science to categorically state what such ammo would do. When the Haags did their experiments for the NOVA program, they used the same type of rifle and ammo that LHO used because that is what is relevant to the issues they were addressing.
-
Regarding FMJ bullet behavior and the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove the ammo that hit his head could not have been FMJ ammo, see my reply in another thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5154.msg184062.html#msg184062
-
Readers who have seen our previous exchanges on this issue will see that you are now just lying through your teeth and are continuing to simply make up nonsense, not to mention that you are acting like a rude teenager who knows he's losing the argument--and losing it badly.
This from the guy who claimed I had cited Guinn's findings when I hadn't even mentioned him in this thread. Clean up your own act before you start accusing others of lying.
They'll see that you are still ducking the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test, which show minimal bullet fragmentation. They'll see that I've quoted a number of forensic and ballistics experts on the behavior of FMJ bullets, and that you obviously have no answer for the cold, hard facts about FMJ bullet behavior.
Refuting your FUBAR conclusions is not ducking. I applied critical thinking to your claims and pointed out the flaws in your logic. That is not ducking/.
They will find it odd that you comically accuse me of not providing sources when I have provided numerous sources (including page numbers therein) for my statements, and when you almost never provide any sources to back up your bogus claims.
I provided a link to the ENTIRE Science Direct article instead of following you standard practice of clipping a few short sentences out of context and then putting your own spin on what it mean.
They will notice that you still haven't explained the fact that every expert who has examined the medical evidence and commented on it has said the skull damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity.
I did address this and I pointed out that without a standard definition of what constitutes "high velocity", the observation is meaningless. It tells us nothing about the round in question. Do you know of such a definition? I didn't think so, but that doesn't stop you from using the term to lamely try to make a point.
If they read the 2022 Science Direct summary article that you linked (I just have to chuckle about this), they will see that the article says the JFK skull damage was done by the "high-speed impact" of a bullet--but, again, the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. They will notice that the study was purely computational and virtual and was not based on any actual JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests. They will notice that the study does not even address the known behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike skull bone. And, they will notice that not one of the four authors of that study had ever written a single article on a forensic/ballistics issue before they wrote their 2022 "ballistic analysis" of JFK's head damage.
Now tell us what Science Direct considered "high velocity". Oh wait, You can't. Never mind.
(The four authors' previous articles deal with such subjects as the viscoelasticity of human gluteal tissue, metabolic consequences of persistence of visceral obesity and diabetes, radiation dose-dependent skin toxicity, the adhesion and invasion of renal cell carcinoma cells, strategy of robotic surgeons to exert public influence through Twitter, laser-induced thermotherapy using MR thermometry, vitamin D deficiency in orthopedic patients, cartilage chip transplantation for cartilage defects, and periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels. What happened to your phony position that only the opinions of forensic experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives count?)
When you aren't lying, you are telling half-truths which is just as bad. I have cited the forensic experts who have examined the medical evidence. I have never said that they are the only ones that count. I have cited the work of the Haags on ballistics. I have rejected your practice of citing "experts" who are commenting on fields outside of their area of expertise.
They will find it especially odd that you are still claiming that "every forensic expert" who has examined and commented on the JFK medical evidence has "concluded JFK was shot from above and behind," when I've proved to you that this is not true,
My aching Bahookie. Name one FORENSIC MEDICAL EXPERT who has seen the medical evidence who has disagreed with the original autopsy conclusion that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from behind him. That doesn't include radiation oncologists. That doesn't include ophthalmologists. It doesn't include gynecologists. These are the kinds of doctors you typically cite to try and make your FUBAR points.
and when this does not even address the issue of the ammo's behavior. They will also find it quite revealing that you once again allude to Guinn's debunked NAA findings. And on and on I could go.
Another of your half-truths. I have never cited Guinn to support any argument I have made. In response to another poster who suggested that the lead fragments from the JBC's wrist and JFK's head be compared to the recovered bullets, I pointed out that this had already been done. This is what I actually wrote on the matter"
"Actually, fragments from the brain were compared to the fragments found inside the limo and fragments from JBC's wrist were compared to CE399, both by the FBI in 1964 and by Dr. Vincent Guinn for the HSCA in 1977. Ken Rahn wrote an excellent article about it. Rather than put my own spin on what those tests did or didn't prove, I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_JFK_assassination.html"
I neither endorsed nor refuted Guinn's findings and as I said, left it up to the reader to make their own judgement. You resort to your practice of telling half truths have suggested that I endorsed Guinn's findings, which I most certainly did not do. But that didn't stop you from making your knee-jerk reaction to what I wrote.
You see, I know that you're never going to deal with this issue in an honest, credible manner. I realize that. You've proved in spades. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and grasp and blunder in trying to explain the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.
You are the last person on this forum who should be pontificating about honesty.
Let me refresh your memory with quotes from Dr. DiMaio's internationally acclaimed forensic book Gunshot Wounds that I've presented to you several times now and that you just keep dodging:
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. . . .[./u](Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
Again, did you catch that? Did you see where DiMaio said (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo?
But, of course, I'm fairly certain you'll just continue to lie, duck, dodge, grasp, and blunder about this fact.
BTW, if rifles are almost never used in gunshot cases involving headshots except in wartime, why do forensic and ballistics sources state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone? What is their basis for saying this? Huh?
I bet I know: I bet they base that statement of fact on known forensic cases. If the present is any indication of the past, then this should not be surprising. Why? Well, in 2020 and 2021 rifles were used in murders over 900 times; rifles were used 570 times in 2022 murders; rifles were used 533 times in 2023 murders, and rifles were used 401 times in 2024 murders (https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/FBI_UCR_Expanded_Homicide_Data_Table_8_Murder_Victims_by_Weapon_2020-2024-1.pdf).
If only 10% of those cases involved headshots with FMJ ammo, that would make over 230 cases involving headshots with FMJ ammo, and, again, FMJ ammo is one of the three most common types of ammo.
So you can drop your bogus claim that we have very little information on the behavior of FMJ bullets when they hit skulls. We also have the WC's, Lattimer's, and Fackler's headshot wound ballistics tests, none of which produced FMJ bullets that shattered into dozens of fragments, not to mention FMJ bullets that also deposited several small fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact, created a fragment trail disconnected from any entry wound, and magically deposited two fragments at the opposite and of the skull at least 1 inch from any fragment trail.
I have pointed out to you how infrequently any type of rifle is used in homicides in the US and those involving rifle fired FMJ bullets to the skull would be a tiny fraction of rifle homicides. Even smaller would be those involving 6.5mm Carcano bullets would be the only meaningful comparison to the JFK assassination. Everything else is apples to oranges. It would not surprise me at all if JFK was the only person murder in the USA by such a bullet fired into the skull, given how unusual that particular rifle and round are. Even though the Carcano has become a collector's item, finding the same type of ammo Oswald fired is difficult. There are a number of dealers selling 6.5X52mm Carcano compatible rounds, but the FMJ round nosed bullet is quite rare. There are pointy tipped FMJ rounds available and also rounded lead bullets, but that is not what Oswald fired.