JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 29, 2020, 03:55:37 PM

Title: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 29, 2020, 03:55:37 PM
I suppose that some long-gunman theorists will never cease to peddle what physicist Dr. G. Paul Chambers calls the “bizarre and implausible” jet-effect and neuromuscular-reaction theories to explain JFK’s backward head snap in the Zapruder film. Recently, a forum member posted yet another defense of these nutty theories. So I thought it would be worthwhile to post some of the research that has debunked these theories.

I will present one of British researcher Martin Hay’s critiques of the jet-effect and the neuromuscular-reaction theories. Then, I will present a portion of physicist Dr. G. Paul Chambers’ critique of the neurospasm theory.

I will start with Martin Hay’s critique, which, among other things, exposes Dr. Alvarez’s concealment of ballistics tests information that contradicted his claims. Notice, also, that Hay discusses the fact that Josiah Thompson’s conclusion that JFK’s head moves approximately 2 inches between Z312-313 is wrong, and that Thompson has acknowledged his error.

Quote
Over the years, Warren Commission defenders have offered a variety of theories intended to explain why a shot from the rear would cause Kennedy's head to snap backwards. Predictably, Ayton and Von Pein invoke the two most popular of these hypotheses: the "neuromuscular reaction" and the "jet effect". (p. 96-97)

As Larry Sturdivan explains it, the neuromuscular reaction theory suggests that, "The tissue inside [Kennedy's] skull was being moved around. It caused a massive amount of nerve stimulation to go down his spine. Every nerve in his body was stimulated...since the back muscles are stronger than the abdominal muscles, that meant that Kennedy arched dramatically backwards." (NOVA Cold Case: JFK, 2013) However, as Donald Thomas explains,

"Sturdivan's postulate suffers from a patently anomalous notion of the anatomy. In any normal person the antagonistic muscles of the limbs are balanced, and regardless of the relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the limbs upward, outward, and forward. Backward extension of the limbs is unnatural and awkward; certainly not reflexive. Likewise, the largest muscle in the back, the 'erector spinae,' functions exactly as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright. Neither the erector spinae, or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their contraction." (Thomas, p. 341)

Not only is the reaction that Sturdivan describes highly implausible, it is also in conflict with the Zapruder film. It is quite clear from watching the film that Kennedy's movement did not begin with an arching of the back. As the ITEK corporation noted following extensive slow motion study, his head snapped backwards first, "then his whole body followed the backward movement." (ITEK report, p. 64)

If Sturdivan's theory seems plausible before closer analysis, that is more than can be said for Luis Alvarez's jet effect hypothesis. Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, suggested that in a similar fashion to the thrust developed in a jet engine in response to its exhaust, the explosive exiting of blood and brain matter from the right side of Kennedy's head created a corresponding propulsive momentum in the opposite direction, pushing it backwards. He claimed to have proven his theory by firing a rifle at melons wrapped in tape which, as Ayton and Von Pein write, were "propelled backward in the direction of the rifle." (p. 97) But, as should be immediately obvious, a melon is nothing like a human head. It weighs around half as much and so requires far less energy to set in motion. It also lacks a bone and, therefore, offers little resistance to a bullet. This means that there is little deposition of momentum and, consequently, very little force to overcome.

Alvarez first presented his theory and the results of his melon tests in the September 1976 issue of the American Journal of Physics. As author Josiah Thompson discovered a few years ago when he acquired the raw notes and photos from all of Alvarez's tests, the physicist had kept some important information to himself. Alvarez had reported on tests performed on May 31, 1970, during which 6 out of 7 melons had recoiled "in a retrograde manner."

What he did not divulge was that there had been two earlier rounds of testing which painted a very different picture. During those earlier firings, Alvarez had used larger, heavier melons which apparently did not behave the way he wanted them to. In later tests he reduced their size by half and jacked up the velocity of his bullets to 3000 fps. Alvarez also fired at a variety of other objects besides melons. There were coconuts filled with jello which were blown 39 feet forward; a plastic jug of water which went 6 feet downrange; and 5 rubber balls filled with gelatin; all of which were blown away from the rifle. In fact, as Thompson noted during his presentation at the Wecht Institutes' Passing the Torch symposium in 2013, "in these tests, every time they shot anything but a melon it went with the bullet. But Alvarez didn't tell anybody that." Nor did he disclose the fact that his JFK experiments had been funded by the U.S. Government. (Wrone, p. 103)

According to Ayton and Von Pein, "a key point that is often overlooked or downplayed by conspiracy theorists is the fact that when JFK is struck in the head with a bullet...the President's head initially moves forward, not backward...which is consistent with the head shot coming from behind..." (p. 98) Can they be serious? Far from being "overlooked or downplayed" this alleged forward motion was actually first discovered by a "conspiracy theorist," Josiah Thompson, who wrote about it in detail in his classic book, Six Seconds in Dallas. Thompson measured the forward movement between Zapruder frames 312 and 313 as approximately two inches and, together with the much larger backward motion, took it as evidence of two shots striking the skull almost simultaneously. However, Thompson has since realised that he made a crucial mistake.

In his online essay, Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, Thompson writes,

"In the years since those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there."

Thompson further explained in his 2013 Wecht symposium presentation, "Since highly exposed areas; that is bright areas of the film; have a whole lot of energy to them, if the shutter is open and the camera moved, then those highly energized areas will intrude into low energized areas. It's a basic photographic principle." Indeed, during his presentation Thompson demonstrated how this principle affected other objects in the Zapruder film besides Kennedy's head.

What all this means according to Thompson is that "there is no longer any solid evidence whatsoever; whatsoever; that John Kennedy was hit in the head from the rear between 312 and 313." As Thompson's co-presenter, Keith Fitzgerald, demonstrated, JFK's head actually exhibits its fastest forward movement between frames 328 and 330, which just so happens to be precisely when the final shot from the Book Depository appears on the Dallas Police dictabelt recording if we align the Grassy Knoll shot with frame 313. This synchronization of audio and visual evidence fully supports the belief of Drs. Riley, Wecht, and Robertson that Kennedy's head was struck by two bullets; one from the front and one from the rear. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt)

And now we turn to Dr. Chambers' critique of the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Dr. Chambers is an internationally recognized expert in the field of shock physics and has performed extensive high-speed photographic studies of high-velocity impacts and deformations of solids as well as computer modeling of shock wave and matter interactions. Dr. Chambers holds a PhD in physics from the University of Maryland. He has worked in the NASA Goddard Optics Branch, in the Energetic Materials and Detonation Science Department of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland, and in the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. He now works on the development of renewable energy sources with Bellatrix Energy, LLC.

In his book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, Dr. Chambers rejects the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory as a “bizarre and implausible explanations” for Kennedy’s backward head movement. His refutation of the jet-effect theory is devastating, but I will just quote part of his refutation of the neurospasm theory:

Quote
In order to account for Kennedy’s backward head recoil at the moment of impact, Bugliosi resorts to bizarre and implausible explanations like supersonic jetting and freak instantaneous muscle spasms. . . .

The second theory was that the listless Kennedy experienced a muscle spasm at the precise moment of impact, caused by the bullet passing through his brain. Any theory suggesting muscle spasms or contractions has to deal with the issue of human reaction times. As discussed previously, human reaction times are not infinitely fast. The body does not react instantaneously to insult. When the doctor hits your knee with the rubber hammer, there is a noticeable delay before your leg muscles flex and your lower leg extends upward. This reaction time can be quantified by the simple experiment of dropping a ruler between your thumb and forefinger. As this experiment demonstrates, human reaction times are on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.

Zapruder film frames are snapshots taken at 54-millisecond intervals. On the very next frame after the bullet impact, frame Z314, Kennedy is already moving noticeably backward. On frame Z315, his head has moved even farther to the rear, on the order of several inches. Neck muscles are a very weak muscle group in humans, where the head is designed to rest vertically on the neck, not to be supported against gravity as in the case of nonhuman primates. For this model to be viable, it requires a muscle contraction from the waist. A backward spasm from the waist is a major movement of a large muscle group. It’s much harder to do this than it is to pinch your fingers together. Yet, for the theory of the backward muscle spasm to explain the head recoil, Kennedy’s large muscle reaction time would have to have been much faster than human reaction times in the finger pinch test, which are about 200 milliseconds. Therefore, a simple experiment in human reaction times rules out the possibility that Kennedy’s rearward head motion is due to a muscle spasm induced by the incoming bullet striking his brain. . . .

Bugliosi’s entire laborious analysis is reminiscent of the ancient practice of adding epicycles, nested circles, to planetary orbits to salvage the Ptolemaic or “earth-centered” model of the solar system. (Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, New York: Prometheus Books, 2012, pp. 130, 134-135)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 29, 2020, 06:17:01 PM

Quote
In order to account for Kennedy’s backward head recoil at the moment of impact, Bugliosi resorts to bizarre and implausible explanations like supersonic jetting and freak instantaneous muscle spasms. . . .

The second theory was that the listless Kennedy experienced a muscle spasm at the precise moment of impact, caused by the bullet passing through his brain. Any theory suggesting muscle spasms or contractions has to deal with the issue of human reaction times. As discussed previously, human reaction times are not infinitely fast. The body does not react instantaneously to insult. When the doctor hits your knee with the rubber hammer, there is a noticeable delay before your leg muscles flex and your lower leg extends upward. This reaction time can be quantified by the simple experiment of dropping a ruler between your thumb and forefinger. As this experiment demonstrates, human reaction times are on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.

Dr. Chambers points out that Kennedy’s reaction within 55 milliseconds, is much faster than a normal human reaction. This is true. But the goat’s reaction in the 1948 U. S. Army film of a goat being shot through the brain shows a reaction of 40 milliseconds, which is also much faster than a normal goat reaction. Clearly, if a neuromuscular reaction occurs in an animal, it is a very fast reaction. One cannot rule out a neurological spasm in a human, on account of the super-human speed of the reaction because the goat reacts with super-goat speed.

The super-fast reaction times are not surprising when one thinks about it. For a human, or a goat, the body receives a “message”, maybe from a limb, maybe from the eyes, maybe from the ears. The three steps of the reaction are:
1.   Sending the “message” from the body to the brain. This “message” may have to travel several feet along nerves, up the spinal cord and onto the brain.
2.   The brain processes the “message”.
3.   The brain sends out commands to the body’s muscles and the “message” travels down the spinal cord to the appropriate muscle. This “message” may also have to travel several feet.

In the neuromuscular spasm, the first two steps are skipped. The brain is pushed hard by the cavity formed in the wake of the bullet. This stretches the top of the spinal cord. This generates a spurious signal down the spinal cord to all the muscles of the body, governed by the spinal cord, which is everything from the neck down. The spurious signal should start within a few milliseconds. This results in a much faster reaction time than the usual 3 step process. This explains the super-fast reactions of the goat.

Tests on animals show that the neuromuscular spasm, when it occurs, is a super-fast neuromuscular spasm. So basically, Dr. Chambers is saying that a super-fast neuromuscular spasm could not have occurred with President Kennedy because his reactions were super-fast. Dr. Chambers statements speak more of his ignorance of neuromuscular spasms then they do on reality.


Questions which Mr. Griffith is afraid to answer:

Why should Dr. Chambers, Dr. Mantik and you claim that the fast-neuromuscular spasm in a human has been established as being impossible, or highly unlikely, when this can only be established as impossible or unlikely by running tests on human subjects?

Wouldn’t one have to run these experiments first, before making these claims?

If these tests cannot be run, shouldn’t we withhold judgment?

Or is it more scientific to just guess?



Assuming it cannot happen with humans is no more scientific that assuming it can. All I ask, is for the neuromuscular spasm to be considered a possibility. And only to accept it as the most probably explanation for JFK’s backwards movement if the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis best explains his movements.

Regardless of the degrees, Dr. Chambers and Dr. Mantik do not take a scientific approach to this question. Science degrees do not necessarily confer proper scientific attitudes. There are scientists with Ph.D.’s who do not believe in the theory of evolution.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 29, 2020, 07:59:07 PM
Josiah Thompson’s conclusion that JFK’s head moves approximately 2 inches between Z312-313 is wrong, and that Thompson has acknowledged his error.

The head moved forward between frames Z312 and Z313 in 1967. And it still moves forward today..

(https://images2.imgbox.com/8f/30/ezBJIls3_o.jpg)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 29, 2020, 09:16:18 PM

In his book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, Dr. Chambers rejects the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory as a “bizarre and implausible explanations” for Kennedy’s backward head movement. His refutation of the jet-effect theory is devastating, but I will just quote part of his refutation of the neurospasm theory:

Zapruder film frames are snapshots taken at 54-millisecond intervals. On the very next frame after the bullet impact, frame Z314, Kennedy is already moving noticeably backward. On frame Z315, his head has moved even farther to the rear, on the order of several inches. Neck muscles are a very weak muscle group in humans, where the head is designed to rest vertically on the neck, not to be supported against gravity as in the case of nonhuman primates. For this model to be viable, it requires a muscle contraction from the waist. A backward spasm from the waist is a major movement of a large muscle group. It’s much harder to do this than it is to pinch your fingers together. Yet, for the theory of the backward muscle spasm to explain the head recoil, Kennedy’s large muscle reaction time would have to have been much faster than human reaction times in the finger pinch test, which are about 200 milliseconds. Therefore, a simple experiment in human reaction times rules out the possibility that Kennedy’s rearward head motion is due to a muscle spasm induced by the incoming bullet striking his brain. . .

However, an experiment cited by conspiracist Milicent Cranor demonstrates that even less time may be required.

Cranor summarizes a study published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):

Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:

Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)

Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)

Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)

Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)

Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)

Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)


https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 29, 2020, 10:01:22 PM
However, an experiment cited by conspiracist Milicent Cranor demonstrates that even less time may be required.

Cranor summarizes a study published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):

Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:

Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)

Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)

Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)

Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)

Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)

Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)


https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm

One, you realize that Milicent Cranor says the neuromuscular-reaction theory is ridiculous, right?

Two, the response times you're citing are auditory startle reflex times, not muscle response times to the impact of a bullet. There's no damage to any tissue from an auditory stimulus, unlike when you have a bullet strike and damage a skull.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 29, 2020, 10:11:31 PM

I will start with Martin Hay’s critique, which, among other things, exposes Dr. Alvarez’s concealment of ballistics tests information that contradicted his claims.

I haven’t heard of anything so low down since a Mr. Griffith’s concealment of ballistic tests information that contradicted his claims from Dr. Zacharko. I am shocked at Dr. Alvarez.

Notice, also, that Hay discusses the fact that Josiah Thompson’s conclusion that JFK’s head moves approximately 2 inches between Z312-313 is wrong, and that Thompson has acknowledged his error.

It is impossible for Thompson to acknowledge his error because these measurements were not made by him. It would be like me confessing my error in the Michelson–Morley experiment that falsely indicated that the speed of light was the same in all directions.

These measurements were made by physics graduate student William Hoffman, not Josiah Thompson. Josiah Thompson commissioned Hoffman for this work because he was better trained and had more experience making careful measurements. And no one knew about the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis back in the 1960’s so he had no motive to fake the results. In that sense, it is impossible to even get another such unbiased measurements taken again in the future.


The head moved forward between frames Z312 and Z313 in 1967. And it still moves forward today.

Yes Jerry, it does. But as they say in Michael’s favorite movie “After all tomorrow is another day”. Click on the link below to get an even clearer picture.

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 29, 2020, 10:31:18 PM
I haven’t heard of anything so low down since a Mr. Griffith’s concealment of ballistic tests information that contradicted his claims from Dr. Zacharko. I am shocked at Dr. Alvarez.

You are not to be taken seriously, because you use dishonest arguments. The ballistics tests that I "concealed" from Dr. Zacharko were the irrelevant goat tests to which you keep clinging. You keep ignoring the fact that human and goat neurobiology and neurophysics are not the same. You keep ignoring Dr. Zacharko's detailed explanation of why no neurospasm could have caused the backward head movement. Etc., etc., etc.

It is impossible for Thompson to acknowledge his error because these measurements were not made by him. It would be like me confessing my error in the Michelson–Morley experiment that falsely indicated that the speed of light was the same in all directions.

These measurements were made by physics graduate student William Hoffman, not Josiah Thompson. Josiah Thompson commissioned Hoffman for this work because he was better trained and had more experience making careful measurements. And no one knew about the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis back in the 1960’s so he had no motive to fake the results. In that sense, it is impossible to even get another such unbiased measurements taken again in the future.

Thompson checked the measurements and believed they were accurate. He now realizes they were wrong, for the reasons he explains in his article (and which are quoted in my OP). I take it you have not read physicist Art Snyder's research on this issue, which research persuaded Thompson that he was wrong.

Quote
Yes Jerry, it does. But as they say in Michael’s favorite movie “After all tomorrow is another day”. Click on the link below to get an even clearer picture. http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

Yeah, and it looks like Organ is making the same mistake that Thompson and Hoffman made.

Frankly, I would be glad if the Zapruder film did show a 2.3-inch movement in 1/18th/second just before the backward head snap begins, because that would be a reversal of movement that could not be caused by gunfire on this planet and would be further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

It might be worthwhile to read Dr. Thompson's entire section on the supposed 2.3-inch forward movement in Z312-313:

Quote
Many years ago, I concluded that the President had been struck twice in the head within approximately one-ninth of a second between Zapruder frames 312 and 314. The first shot pushed his head forward approximately two inches between frames 312 and 313. The second shot bowled him over backwards and to the left.

Although it remained a remarkable coincidence that two shots would arrive on their target from different locations and distances within one-ninth of a second, this conclusion was compelled by what I measured on sequential frames of the Zapruder film. Using two points on the back of the limousine, I measured the distance between these points and the back of the President's head. Between frames 312 and 313, this distance increased dramatically by two inches. The only way to explain this extraordinary acceleration of the President's head was to suppose he had been hit by a bullet fired from the rear.

In the years since those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there.

Since that time, David Wimp has made extremely careful measurements on the film. He has determined that the upper bodies of the President and all other occupants of the limousine begin moving forward at about Z308. Except for the President, all the others keep moving forward until at least Z317. The President, of course, is bowled over backward and to the left. This retrograde motion begins at about Z314. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_3.html)

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 29, 2020, 11:55:32 PM

You are not to be taken seriously, because you use dishonest arguments. The ballistics tests that I "concealed" from Dr. Zacharko were the irrelevant goat tests to which you keep clinging. You keep ignoring the fact that human and goat neurobiology and neurophysics are not the same. You keep ignoring Dr. Zacharko's detailed explanation of why no neurospasm could have caused the backward head movement. Etc., etc., etc.

The most important evidence we have is video of an animal showing the neuromuscular spasm. We only have the one video, because it’s the only video I know that shows an animal being shot by a rifle bullet through the head.

If you’re going to get me to listen to an expert, that expert had better know the best pieces of evidence that both sides have. He better know all about the best piece of evidence that our side has. He doesn’t have to accept it, but he damm well better know about it. Otherwise, I’m not listening.

I don’t want you to decide what evidence is relevant or not. I want the “expert” to decide. And to hear the “expert’s” reasons on why they feel this evidence is relevant or not.


And as far as that not being relevant, the U. S. Army took film of, as memory serves me, 10,000 goats (who were drugged unconscious) being shot in various parts of the body. This was not done because some general in the Pentagon believed that the wars of the future were going to be fought by goats. These tests were commissioned to get insight into what happens at the moment a human soldier was wounded. It might give insight on how to better treat the wounded. Or develop better bullets. Somebody thought these tests were relevant.

The army figured accurately that animals can be used for this purpose. Afterall, the military had lots of experience, not in World War II but in previous wars, were animals, mostly horses, were exposed to enemy fire and observed that the effects of bullets on animals did not seem to be vastly different than the effects on humans.

Perhaps humans and animals would react greatly differently to rifle bullets to the head but, up until 1963, no one thought so.

Questions:
Can you quote an expert who before 1963 said that humans and animals would react differently to a rifle bullet through the brain or was this an argument first developed after 1963 to bolster certain arguments on the Kennedy assassination?

Was this something that was well known before then or was it something that was first “discovered” afterwards.



Thompson checked the measurements and believed they were accurate. He now realizes they were wrong, for the reasons he explains in his article (and which are quoted in my OP).

Yeah, and it looks like Organ is making the same mistake that Thompson and Hoffman made.

Yeah. I have the same problem. A lot of us LNers have that. Trusting what my eyes tell me and not what you or Art Snyder or Thompson tell me. I’ll have to get my eyes checked out by an optometrist.


I take it you have not read physicist Art Snyder's research on this issue, which research persuaded Thompson that he was wrong.

The head seemed quite still from z304 up through z312, according to Hoffman’s careful measurements. I don’t see why these “distortions” would kick in right at z313, and cause JFK’s head to appear to move forward, while causing Jackie’s head to appear to stay still, as did JFK’s up until z313.

Does Snyder explain that?


Frankly, I would be glad if the Zapruder film did show a 2.3-inch movement in 1/18th/second just before the backward head snap begins, because that would be a reversal of movement that could not be caused by gunfire on this planet and would be further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

No, you wouldn’t. You hope that there is no 2.3-inch forward movement, indicating a shot from the rear. You would wish the film would show itself to be a fake in some other way, any other way than that. That is why you argue there is no 2.3-inch forward movement.


It might be worthwhile to read Dr. Thompson's entire section on the supposed 2.3-inch forward movement in Z312-313:

Not unless he explains why this “distorted-apparent” movement is not there during z304-z312, but only kicks in at z313.

Not unless he explains why this “distorted-apparent” movement only effect JFK’s head but not Jackie’s?

You want me to except that Dr. Thompson’s arguments that the forward movement is not real. But to not accept his arguments that the film is real.

If Thompson can’t tell that the Zapruder film is an obvious fake, why are you interested on his opinion on if the head appears to move forward at z313? I would have thought that, for that reason alone, you wouldn’t be interested in what else Thompson thought of the film.


But I have some questions for you that don’t require any research. You can answer them within 5 minutes just using reasoning.


Questions:

Why should Dr. Chambers, Dr. Mantik and you claim that the fast-neuromuscular spasm in a human has been established as being impossible, or highly unlikely, when this can only be established as impossible or unlikely by running tests on human subjects?

Wouldn’t one have to run these experiments first, before making these claims?

If these tests cannot be run, shouldn’t we withhold judgment?

Or is it more scientific to just guess?

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 12:07:54 AM
One, you realize that Milicent Cranor says the neuromuscular-reaction theory is ridiculous, right?

Two, the response times you're citing are auditory startle reflex times, not muscle response times to the impact of a bullet. There's no damage to any tissue from an auditory stimulus, unlike when you have a bullet strike and damage a skull.

I don't care what Milicent Cranor says.

We are talking about involuntary response times. The involuntary reaction is a nerve response The cause of the nerve response is irrelevant.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2020, 12:10:55 AM
The head moved forward between frames Z312 and Z313 in 1967. And it still moves forward today..

Thanks Jerry, of course Kennedy's head moves forwards and the same event was captured by Nix from the other side of Dealey Plaza and both films explicitly show the same expulsion of matter moving forward and away from Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

(https://s7.gifyu.com/images/Two-Headshots.gif)
Credit Chris Davidson

Some Autopsy photos were taken in stereo pairs and by using computer power undreamed of in the 60's and 70's we can stitch the thousands of pixels in the two images together to create a rotating morph which visually demonstrates that they share the exact same depth mapped details and conclusively proves their authenticity, and that's in addition to the detailed HSCA's photo analysis.
The following GIF shows only a single bullet hole and no large gaping wound on the rear of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Gpg1qkcY/JFKBOHlatest-HD4-zps1159966c.gif)

The wound on the side of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photos is reinforced by the authentic Zapruder film.

(https://i.postimg.cc/s2xYbpn4/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)

And also by a stack of eyewitnesses and ALL the physical evidence.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1XQNR6KT/alotofevidencek-zps98fb39dc.jpg)

Btw have you noticed Griffith in the photo section made a thread which he thinks shows impossible movements in the Zapruder film and therefore it must be altered, yet here he and his "experts" rely on precise measurements in the very film Griffith believes is faked? You can't make this stuff up, but it is hilarious.

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2020, 12:52:44 AM
More proof of a shot from behind is the pieces of brain/skull from Kennedy's head that is violently blasted out the front and can be seen in later Limo photos.

(https://i.postimg.cc/rpRJK1SF/z313-z314.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/02HDD656/pres-limo-blood-and-matter.jpg)

JohnM

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on June 30, 2020, 01:51:47 AM
An example of the speed of a neuromuscular reflex (not reaction) is highlighted in the below animation. Focus on Kennedy's right hand, he is shot through in Z224 and by Z225 his hand is beginning to clench shut. By Z226 his hand has snapped shut into a fist.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYg0tyRK/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 02:20:51 AM
The most important evidence we have is video of an animal showing the neuromuscular spasm. We only have the one video, because it’s the only video I know that shows an animal being shot by a rifle bullet through the head.

If you’re going to get me to listen to an expert, that expert had better know the best pieces of evidence that both sides have. He better know all about the best piece of evidence that our side has. He doesn’t have to accept it, but he damm well better know about it. Otherwise, I’m not listening.

I don’t want you to decide what evidence is relevant or not. I want the “expert” to decide. And to hear the “expert’s” reasons on why they feel this evidence is relevant or not.

And as far as that not being relevant, the U. S. Army took film of, as memory serves me, 10,000 goats (who were drugged unconscious) being shot in various parts of the body. This was not done because some general in the Pentagon believed that the wars of the future were going to be fought by goats. These tests were commissioned to get insight into what happens at the moment a human soldier was wounded. It might give insight on how to better treat the wounded. Or develop better bullets. Somebody thought these tests were relevant.

The army figured accurately that animals can be used for this purpose. Afterall, the military had lots of experience, not in World War II but in previous wars, were animals, mostly horses, were exposed to enemy fire and observed that the effects of bullets on animals did not seem to be vastly different than the effects on humans.

Perhaps humans and animals would react greatly differently to rifle bullets to the head but, up until 1963, no one thought so.

Questions:
Can you quote an expert who before 1963 said that humans and animals would react differently to a rifle bullet through the brain or was this an argument first developed after 1963 to bolster certain arguments on the Kennedy assassination?

Was this something that was well known before then or was it something that was first “discovered” afterwards.


Yeah. I have the same problem. A lot of us LNers have that. Trusting what my eyes tell me and not what you or Art Snyder or Thompson tell me. I’ll have to get my eyes checked out by an optometrist.

The head seemed quite still from z304 up through z312, according to Hoffman’s careful measurements. I don’t see why these “distortions” would kick in right at z313, and cause JFK’s head to appear to move forward, while causing Jackie’s head to appear to stay still, as did JFK’s up until z313.

Does Snyder explain that?

No, you wouldn’t. You hope that there is no 2.3-inch forward movement, indicating a shot from the rear. You would wish the film would show itself to be a fake in some other way, any other way than that. That is why you argue there is no 2.3-inch forward movement.

Not unless he explains why this “distorted-apparent” movement is not there during z304-z312, but only kicks in at z313.

Not unless he explains why this “distorted-apparent” movement only effect JFK’s head but not Jackie’s?

You want me to except that Dr. Thompson’s arguments that the forward movement is not real. But to not accept his arguments that the film is real.

If Thompson can’t tell that the Zapruder film is an obvious fake, why are you interested on his opinion on if the head appears to move forward at z313? I would have thought that, for that reason alone, you wouldn’t be interested in what else Thompson thought of the film.

But I have some questions for you that don’t require any research. You can answer them within 5 minutes just using reasoning.

Questions:

Why should Dr. Chambers, Dr. Mantik and you claim that the fast-neuromuscular spasm in a human has been established as being impossible, or highly unlikely, when this can only be established as impossible or unlikely by running tests on human subjects?

Wouldn’t one have to run these experiments first, before making these claims?

If these tests cannot be run, shouldn’t we withhold judgment?

Or is it more scientific to just guess?


You have once again responded with a long reply that does not lay a finger on any of the facts that refute the neuromuscular-reaction theory. You did not address a single fact that Martin Hay raised, and you are claiming, without any credible evidence, that Dr. Chambers is simply wrong about human neuromuscular reaction times.

Just exactly who are your neuroscientists/physicists who say the neuromuscular-reaction theory is plausible? I can name numerous such scholars who say the theory is implausible/bizarre/nonsensical, including Dr. Zacharko, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Riley, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Snyder.

Even Dr. Luis Alvarez, who falsified his ballistics tests data and did all he could to avoid the obvious conclusion that the backward head movement was caused by a frontal shot--even he did not buy the idea that a bullet to JFK's head could have caused a neuromuscular reaction. Instead, Alvarez relied on the jet-effect theory to explain the backward head movement--and, as we've seen, Alvarez's jet-effect theory has been demolished.





Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 06:49:05 AM

You have once again responded with a long reply that does not lay a finger on any of the facts that refute the neuromuscular-reaction theory. You did not address a single fact that Martin Hay raised, and you are claiming, without any credible evidence, that Dr. Chambers is simply wrong about human neuromuscular reaction times.

Just exactly who are your neuroscientists/physicists who say the neuromuscular-reaction theory is plausible? I can name numerous such scholars who say the theory is implausible/bizarre/nonsensical, including Dr. Zacharko, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Riley, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Snyder.

No. I didn’t say Dr. Chambers is simply wrong about normal human reaction times. I’m saying he is wrong about a neuromuscular spasm reaction time, which we can observe in the goat.


Which of your fine experts:

•   Explains why a neuromuscular spasm would happen in a goat but not in a human. And explains why that is.

Or:

•   Explains why a neuromuscular spasm in a goat would commence after about 40 milliseconds, but in a human, it would take much longer.

Since I am used to you providing no answers, I will provide your answer for you:

None.


Which physicists would say the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis is true?

Asking a physicist is illogical because they don’t deal with biology.

Which neuroscientists say the neuromuscular spasm for a human hypothesis is true?

None that I know of. Because no proper scientist will give an opinion on something that has not been tested yet. They would have to observe a film of a person being shot through the brain to give an opinion. If they are a proper medical doctor. Medical doctors don’t like to give opinions unless their opinion can be backed by evident. Since an experiment of shooting a person through the brain with a rifle bullet is not allowed, its impossible to get an opinion either way, from a proper medical doctor.

100 trillion neutrinos pass through a human body every second. What would happen to a human a billion, trillion neutrinos were to pass through a human brain each second over the course of an entire year. A proper medical doctor should not give an opinion.

How many neuroscientists do you have? One. Dr. Zacharko. A proper scientist would first ask “What evidence, like films of humans do we have?”. The answer, none, and impossible to get this evidence. So, the second question such a scientist should ask “What evidence, like films of animals, do we have?”. And would look at it an evaluate it. He may decide the support is good enough to tentatively say that this hypothesis is plausible. Or might equally likely prefer to withhold any opinion, since no proper test with a human can be run.

You have one neuroscientist, who does not know anything about the basic evidence of this case. Who never checked to see what films of animals being shot were available. For all he knew, you could have been keeping a film of a human being shot through the brain.

So, on the basis of one neuroscientist, who never bothered to learn the most basic facts of this case, I should conclude the neuromuscular spasm is implausible.

I need more than that. I need the neuroscientist to tell me he is aware of what happens when an animal, like a goat is shot through the brain. He needs to tell me why a neuromuscular spasm would happen in a goat but not in a human. Or he needs to tell that a neuromuscular spasm would happen in both a goat and a human, but it would start super-fast in a goat, in 40 milliseconds, but would take much longer in a human. And why he believes this to be true.

No expert of yours has addressed any of my major questions. I won’t accept their opinions until one of them does. And it better not be the opinion of a non-doctor of medicine.


I have answered your questions.


Once again, I will present to you a few questions that you dare not answer, since any answer will not look foolish or destroy your arguments. None of these questions require any research:

Why should Dr. Chambers, Dr. Mantik and you claim that the fast-neuromuscular spasm in a human has been established as being impossible, or highly unlikely, when this can only be established as impossible or unlikely by running tests on human subjects?

Wouldn’t one have to run these experiments first, before making these claims?

If these tests cannot be run, shouldn’t we withhold judgment?

Or is it more scientific to just guess?

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on June 30, 2020, 10:59:57 AM
Hi Joe,

I'm trying to find the scientific data on the goat reflex time but can't, can you tell me where to find it. Thanks
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 12:16:08 PM
Ah-ha! I knew it! I just knew it! I knew there was something wrong with Joe Elliott’s description of the 1948 U.S. Army ballistics test film of a goat being shot in the head. When I pointed out that the backward movement of JFK’s head in the Zapruder film begins too quickly (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) to have been caused by a neuromuscular reaction, Elliott claimed that the goat film proved otherwise:

Quote
. . . there is a video of a goat which was shot through the head which causes its body to move pretty forcibly. . . . The goat starts moving its body 40 milliseconds after the bullet struck. So, the very next frame, roughly 55 milliseconds later, JFK’s head starts moving as well.

Leaving aside the important fact that the goat’s reaction movements are very different from JFK’s reaction movements, on a hunch, I reviewed ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan’s HSCA testimony on the 1948 goat ballistics test, which I had not read for at least 20 years. I discovered that the film that Elliott has been citing was not shot in real time, and that the film that was shot in real time shows that the goat did not begin to react until about 1,000 milliseconds after the bullet’s impact.

The film that Elliott has been citing was taken at 2,400 frames per second (fps). At that film speed, yes, the goat begins to react right around 40 milliseconds after the bullet hits the goat’s head. But, as Sturdivan explained to the HSCA, when you view the real-time film of the same goat test, the one taken at 24 fps, the goat’s reaction “takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump” (1 HSCA 416).

“About a second” equals about 1,000 milliseconds. There are 1,000 milliseconds in 1 second. So if the goat began to react “about a second after the shot,” then it began to react about 1,000 milliseconds after the shot. We can reasonably infer that when Sturdivan said "about a second," he meant 800-1100 milliseconds, or perhaps 800-1000 milliseconds, or perhaps 900-1000 milliseconds.

Sturdivan was nice enough to explain that the 24 fps film was a “normal” view and “real time”:

Quote
The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. (1 HSCA 416)

Sturdivan then explained that the second sequence, which is the one that Elliott has been citing, was taken at 2,400 fps, and that in that 2,400-fps film, yes, the goat’s reaction begins about 40 milliseconds, or “four one-hundredths,” after bullet impact:

Quote
Now, this sequence will show the same goat, exactly the same shot, but in this case the movies are taken at 2,400. frames per second. . . .

Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen. (1 HSCA 416-417)

“Mystery” solved! I say “mystery” because I was frankly a bit baffled by the seemingly impossible speed of the goat’s reaction in the film that Elliott cited. I attributed it to the many differences between goat and human neurobiology and neurophysics (not to mention that the goat’s reaction movements differ markedly from JFK’s). But I also read that goat/sheep/dog/horse and human neuromuscular reaction times are similar—not identical, but similar. Every source I checked said that the fastest human neuromuscular reactions ranged in speed from 100 milliseconds in a few cases to around 200-600 milliseconds in most cases.

When the HSCA asked forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht about the neuromuscular-reaction theory, he rejected it because he said that the fastest time for such a reaction was about 100 milliseconds, but JFK's head starts to move just 55 milliseconds after bullet impact. Dr. Wecht's statement about human neuromuscular reaction times was correct. A study published in Scientific American found that the absolute fastest neuromuscular reaction time was 100 milliseconds, with the slower ones being 400-600 milliseconds (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-reaction-time/). And remember that we're talking about a reaction that involved moving Kennedy's head and upper body, not the flick of two fingers or an eyelid, and not a startle reflex from auditory simulation.

Anyway, to recap: The goat film that Elliott has been citing was not filmed in real time but in 2,400 fps. The real-time film of the same goat and the same test shows that the goat’s reaction did not begin until about 1,000 milliseconds after the bullet hit the skull. Therefore, the goat film argues powerfully against the theory that JFK’s backward movement could have been caused by a neuromuscular reaction. Also, in the Zapruder film, JFK's backward movement begins just 55 milliseconds after bullet impact, far too soon to have been caused by a neuromuscular reaction--the absolute fastest human neuromuscular reaction time is 100 milliseconds, and the normal range for such reactions is from 200 to 600 milliseconds.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 07:25:14 PM
When I pointed out that the backward movement of JFK’s head in the Zapruder film begins too quickly (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) to have been caused by a neuromuscular reaction, Elliott claimed that the goat film proved otherwise:

You are getting that (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) from Chambers. He is wrong. He has Kennedy being hit at Z313 and then noticeable moving backward in the next frame. Kennedy was hit between Z312 and Z313 and the ITEK report has Z315 as being the frame where Kennedy's backward movement is clearly in progress. So, the response time was 110 milliseconds or more.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 07:44:46 PM
You are getting that (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) from Chambers. He is wrong. He has Kennedy being hit at Z313 and then noticeable moving backward in the next frame. Kennedy was hit between Z312 and Z313 and the ITEK report has Z315 as being the frame where Kennedy's backward movement is clearly in progress. So, the response time was 110 milliseconds or more.

Huh?! So now JFK's head doesn't start to move backward until 315?! You'd better go back and read what Elliott himself has acknowledged on this point, not only in this thread but in the his own thread on Dr. Zacharko.

We're not talking about when the head movement is "clearly in progress" but when it begins, and it begins at Z313. Even Nicholas Nalli, in the latest attempt to salvage the jet-effect theory, says, "In Z313 the catastrophic effect of the energy deposit from a supersonic projectile passing through a human head is clearly evident. . . . showing both the initial 'forward snap' of the President's head from Z312 to Z313, along with the 'rearward lurch' from frames Z313 to Z322." Nobody but you denies this.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 07:57:20 PM
Huh?! So now JFK's head doesn't start to move backward until 315?! You'd better go back and read what Elliott himself has acknowledged on this point, not only in this thread but in the his own thread on Dr. Zacharko.

We're not talking about when the head movement is "clearly in progress" but when it begins, and it begins at Z313. Even Nicholas Nalli, in the latest attempt to salvage the jet-effect theory, says, "In Z313 the catastrophic effect of the energy deposit from a supersonic projectile passing through a human head is clearly evident. . . . showing both the initial 'forward snap' of the President's head from Z312 to Z313, along with the 'rearward lurch' from frames Z313 to Z322." Nobody but you denies this.

It's not just me that denies it. The ITEK panel of photo and film analysis experts denied it as well.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 07:59:24 PM

You are getting that (1/18th/second or 55 milliseconds) from Chambers. He is wrong. He has Kennedy being hit at Z313 and then noticeable moving backward in the next frame. Kennedy was hit between Z312 and Z313 and the ITEK report has Z315 as being the frame where Kennedy's backward movement is clearly in progress. So, the response time was 110 milliseconds or more.

Hello Tim

You are right. I myself refer to it as 55 millisecond delay, but it was probably longer. But I don’t know about a full 110 milliseconds.

Defining time as z-312.0 – the camera shutter first opens, z-312.5 – the shutter closes, the head was probably struck about z-312.6, giving the head about 45 milliseconds to move an inch forward by z-313.0. By z-313.5, it was now just over 2 inches forward. By z314.0, it might still be 2 inches forward, it is hard to tell. But by 314.5, the head definitely started moving backwards and had already moved half an inch.

I would guess the backwards movement may have started over the interval z-312.6-314.0, or 75 milliseconds. Perhaps over the interval z-312.5-314.0 or 80 milliseconds. But not a lot more than that. If the delay was a full 110 milliseconds, by the times of z-314.5, the head would still have been 2 inches ahead of its z-312.5 position.

Joe
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 08:06:56 PM
Hello Tim

You are right. I myself refer to it as 55 millisecond delay, but it was probably longer. But I don’t know about a full 110 milliseconds.

Defining time as z-312.0 – the camera shutter first opens, z-312.5 – the shutter closes, the head was probably struck about z-312.6, giving the head about 45 milliseconds to move an inch forward by z-313.0. By z-313.5, it was now just over 2 inches forward. By z314.0, it might still be 2 inches forward, it is hard to tell. But by 314.5, the head definitely started moving backwards and had already moved half an inch.

I would guess the backwards movement may have started over the interval z-312.6-314.0, or 75 milliseconds. Perhaps over the interval z-312.5-314.0 or 80 milliseconds. But not a lot more than that. If the delay was a full 110 milliseconds, by the times of z-314.5, the head would still have been 2 inches ahead of its z-312.5 position.

Joe

Just to make sure that I'm understanding you right, by Z-314.5 you mean what we know as Z315?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 08:41:49 PM

Hi Joe,

I'm trying to find the scientific data on the goat reflex time but can't, can you tell me where to find it. Thanks

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm

Has the testimony of Larry Sturdivan for the HSCA.

Below he explains the film of the goat shot through the brain back in U. S. Army tests made in 1948.

Mr. STURDIVAN - Let me stop the film here and explain what is going to happen. This goat is standing with his horns taped to a bar, only to preserve the aiming point of the bullet, which will come in from the right this time, not from the left, from the right, will strike the goat between the eyes. The black tape is there only to show the relative motion which we were presuming was going to be small. I should say they were presuming, since this film was taken back around 1948, I believe. The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead. The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction. Now, this sequence will show the same goat, exactly the same shot, but in this case the movies are taken at 2,400 frames per second. I forgot to mention that the bullet is a .30-caliber military bullet. If I can stop this at an appropriate point. Now, if you will look up at the forehead of the goat you may see a very small white spot, which was not visible on the last frame. If you can't, don't worry about it. What it is is the bullet entering the head of the goat. And if I can make sure that I have it going forward now. Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen. That was it. Now, we will show a sequence here which I think will prove my assertion. This goat was shot under identical circumstances as the last one was except he is dead before the shot. The straps that you see are suspending him but he is free to swing. If you pushed on his head he would swing gently back and forth in this rack. The bullet will come in from the right, again moving toward the left. In this case, the bullet is deflected as it goes out of the skull, and impacts on the goat near the spine, and then as you may have been able to see very dimly right behind the goat the bullet emerges from the back. It has deposited another few pound-feet per second of momentum in this goat. And then let me run it on through at real speed so you can see how much displacement that goat is given by the momentum that is deposited by the bullet. If we can bring the house lights up, it will run for another 5 minutes without showing any movement in the goat.

. . .

Mr. FAUNTROY - That explains the explosion?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Yes, sir, the explosion effect and the subsequent neuromuscular reaction that occurs roughly four one-hundredths of a second later.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 08:58:10 PM
It's not just me that denies it. The ITEK panel of photo and film analysis experts denied it as well.

I doubt that Itek said that JFK's head does not move backward at all in Z313. Got a link to that report? I read it years ago but no longer have it.

The HSCA noted that the particulate spray from JFK's head indicates that the explosion began in Z312:

Quote
Fragmentary material from the President's head is seen flying upward and outward in frames 313 and 314. The fragments are already airborne and in motion in frame 313. Extrapolation backwards indicates that the explosion began in frame 312 rather than 313, since this would be the frame nearest to the moment when the fragments left the head. (6 HSCA 27)

I could cite a couple dozen analyses that have determined that JFK's head begins to move backward at Z313. This has been measured. From Z313-314, the head moves backward 0.5-0.6 inches.

Until today, I had never seen anyone question this observation. But, of course, now you realize that you need more time--a lot more time, like close to 100% more time--for your neurospasm-reaction theory to even be remotely possible. So, suddenly you decide that, "oh, well, actually, the backward movement doesn't begin until  . . . Z315"!

And I see Joe Elliott is rejecting Sturdivan's specification of the reaction time in real time and is going with Sturdivan's 2400-fps-based time of 40 milliseconds. I guess real-time reaction time must be ditched to make the neurospasm-reaction theory appear to be possible. Ok, if you want to ignore the real-time time, then find me any evidence that a human neurospasm of that magnitude can occur in 40 milliseconds.



Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 09:14:55 PM
Ah-ha! I knew it! I just knew it! I knew there was something wrong with Joe Elliott’s description of the 1948 U.S. Army ballistics test film of a goat being shot in the head.

. . .

Anyway, to recap: The goat film that Elliott has been citing was not filmed in real time but in 2,400 fps. The real-time film of the same goat and the same test shows that the goat’s reaction did not begin until about 1,000 milliseconds after the bullet hit the skull.

What does Mr. Sturdivan say:

Quote
Mr. STURDIVAN - Let me stop the film here and explain what is going to happen. This goat is standing with his horns taped to a bar, only to preserve the aiming point of the bullet, which will come in from the right this time, not from the left, from the right, will strike the goat between the eyes. The black tape is there only to show the relative motion which we were presuming was going to be small. I should say they were presuming, since this film was taken back around 1948, I believe. The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.

No where does Mr. Sturdivan say that first reaction of the goat is the “decerebrate rigidity”, which he observes happening about one second after the shot. He is saying that the last movement of the goat takes place 1,000 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet.

So, when is the soonest reaction of the goat observed? Later he states:

Quote
Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen.

His entire HSCA testimony is on the following website:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm

It doesn’t matter if the film is shot at 24 frames per second or 2,400 frames per second. Four one-hundredths of a second is still four one-hundredths of a second. Or 40 milliseconds. 40 milliseconds after impact, the back legs start to go out.

Ah-ahhh ! ! !


So, yes, I confess. If we define the length of time that the goat starts to react as being the last time the goat moved at all, then the goat reaction time is 1,000 milliseconds. Damm, that is one slow goat. But if we define the length of time that the goat starts to react as being the first time he starts to move, the goat’s reaction time is 40 milliseconds.


If I can define JFK’s reaction time the same way Mr. Griffith does, when the backward movement of JFK stopped, at frame 321, then JFK’s reaction time was 490 milliseconds. Well within the possible reaction time of Dr. Zacharko, Dr. Mantik and all of his other experts.

Ah-ahhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Keep trying, but you haven’t got my goat yet.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 09:33:32 PM
I doubt that Itek said that JFK's head does not move backward at all in Z313. Got a link to that report? I read it years ago but no longer have it.

The HSCA noted that the particulate spray from JFK's head indicates that the explosion began in Z312:

I could cite a couple dozen analyses that have determined that JFK's head begins to move backward at Z313. This has been measured. From Z313-314, the head moves backward 0.5-0.6 inches.

Until today, I had never seen anyone question this observation. But, of course, now you realize that you need more time--a lot more time, like close to 100% more time--for your neurospasm-reaction theory to even be remotely possible. So, suddenly you decide that, "oh, well, actually, the backward movement doesn't begin until  . . . Z315"!

And I see Joe Elliott is rejecting Sturdivan's specification of the reaction time in real time and is going with Sturdivan's 2400-fps-based time of 40 milliseconds. I guess real-time reaction time must be ditched to make the neurospasm-reaction theory appear to be possible. Ok, if you want to ignore the real-time time, then find me any evidence that a human neurospasm of that magnitude can occur in 40 milliseconds.

The ITEK report does not specifically state that the head does not move backward at all in Z313. . At 314, they have the head 0.3" to the rear of its position at 313. However, they have the shoulder and elbow continuing to move forward, 2 and 3 frames respectively, after the head had reversed direction. It seems that they are giving me plenty of time.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60448&search=itek#relPageId=82&tab=page
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 10:10:54 PM
What does Mr. Sturdivan say:

No where does Mr. Sturdivan say that first reaction of the goat is the “decerebrate rigidity”, which he observes happening about one second after the shot. He is saying that the last movement of the goat takes place 1,000 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet.

So, when is the soonest reaction of the goat observed? Later he states:

His entire HSCA testimony is on the following website:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm

It doesn’t matter if the film is shot at 24 frames per second or 2,400 frames per second. Four one-hundredths of a second is still four one-hundredths of a second. Or 40 milliseconds. 40 milliseconds after impact, the back legs start to go out.

Ah-ahhh ! ! !


So, yes, I confess. If we define the length of time that the goat starts to react as being the last time the goat moved at all, then the goat reaction time is 1,000 milliseconds. Damm, that is one slow goat. But if we define the length of time that the goat starts to react as being the first time he starts to move, the goat’s reaction time is 40 milliseconds.

If I can define JFK’s reaction time the same way Mr. Griffith does, when the backward movement of JFK stopped, at frame 321, then JFK’s reaction time was 490 milliseconds. Well within the possible reaction time of Dr. Zacharko, Dr. Mantik and all of his other experts.

Ah-ahhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep trying, but you haven’t got my goat yet.

Oh boy oh boy. Apparently you do not know what "decerebrate" means and what a "decerebrate reaction" is. Apparently you don't understand that when Sturdivan talked about the beginning and end (terminus) of the "decerebrate reaction," he was referring to the neuromuscular reaction. Instead, you're assuming that when Sturdivan said "and that takes places about a second after the shot," he was only talking about half of the actions he had just described, because you think that the decerebrate reaction is separate from the neuromuscular reaction. First, let's read Sturdivan again:

Quote
The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.

The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction. (1 HSCA 416)

Now let's see what "decerebrate" means:

Quote
. . . the arms and legs being held straight out, the toes being pointed downward, and the head and neck being arched backward. The muscles are tightened and held rigidly. This type of posturing usually means there has been severe damage to the brain.

That is exactly the reaction that Sturdivan describes seeing in the 2400 fps film, and he calls it "the neuromuscular reaction that I described," which could only refer to the description of the real-time film:

Quote
. . . then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen. (1 H 417)

Sturdivan knew what "decerebrate reaction" means, and he used it synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction." His syntax could have been a little clearer, but if you know what "decerebrate" means, you can see he was not saying that the decerebrate reaction was different from the neuromuscular reaction--he knew enough not to make such a fundamental error.

Now that we have that point cleared up, you need to deal with his observation that in "real time" the neuromuscular reaction began about 1000 milliseconds after bullet impact.







Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 10:56:22 PM
Just to make sure that I'm understanding you right, by Z-314.5 you mean what we know as Z315?

No. I am not measuring time to the nearest frame, but to the nearest tenth of a frame. Each tenth of a frame is roughly 5 milliseconds long.

z-312.0 is when the shutter opens for frame 312. Roughly 27 milliseconds later the shutter closes at z-312.5. Frame z-312 shows images from time z-312.0 through z-312.5.

I believe the bullet struck at z-312.5, or there abouts, right when the shutter closed or very shortly after. Below is a possible, approximate, time scale. Basically, my best very rough estimate:

Vis    Time    Time
able    in      in
        sec.    Zap         Event
----  -----    -------     ---------------
       0.000   z-312.5   Shutter closes.
       0.000   z-312.5   Bullet impact.
       0.001   z-312.5   Bullet leaves head,
                                momentum has been deposited into head,
                                the head starts moving at a steady speed forward.
       0.027   z-313.0   Shutter opens.
vis   0.027   z-313.0       Head is now 1 inch in front of z-312 position, same steady speed
vis   0.055   z-313.5       Head is now 2 inches in front of z-312 position, same steady speed
       0.055   z-313.5   Shutter closes.
       0.077   z-314.0   Shutter opens.
vis   0.082   z-314.1   Neuromuscular spasm commences,
vis                                 Head starts moving back, initially slowly.
vis   0.110   z-314.5   Head is now 1.5 inches ahead of 312.5 position.
       0.110   z-314.5   Shutter closes.

“vis” refers to events that may be visible, because the shutter was open.

Again, this is not to represent exact locations. I don’t have the timing down to the nearest 5 milliseconds. Just a possible scenario consistent with what the Zapruder film shows and William Hoffman’s data.

In this scenario, the neuromuscular spasm started 82 milliseconds after the bullet impact. The real time  of reaction could be a little more, or less.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 11:02:32 PM
Oh boy oh boy. Apparently you do not know what "decerebrate" means and what a "decerebrate reaction" is. Apparently you don't understand that when Sturdivan talked about the beginning and end (terminus) of the "decerebrate reaction," he was referring to the neuromuscular reaction. Instead, you're assuming that when Sturdivan said "and that takes places about a second after the shot," he was only talking about half of the actions he had just described, because you think that the decerebrate reaction is separate from the neuromuscular reaction. First, let's read Sturdivan again:

What does Mr. Sturdivan mean when he says:

Quote
Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen.

Don’t change the subject. Don’t quote a different portion of the testimony.

Just give me your interpretation of this sentence.


My interpretation is that 40 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet, the goat’s body starts to move.


The section you quote is ambiguous. Does it mean the “decerebrate reaction” starts after one second? Does he mean the wiggling of the tail stops after one second? It is ambiguous. You ignore the clear, unmistakable sentence, and focus and a statement that is ambiguous, and insist on interpreting it your way. If your interpretation is correct, then the later clear sentence, which I focus on, does not make sense. That is why I draw your attention to, and everybody else’s attention, to the clear, unmistakable sentence.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 11:07:50 PM
In this scenario, the neuromuscular spasm started 82 milliseconds after the bullet impact. The real time  of reaction could be a little more, or less.

Amazing. For the past week or so you have repeatedly said that JFK's head began to move backward 55 milliseconds after bullet impact. I trust I don't need to quote you to yourself. But, well, now that you realize you need that movement to start later--much later--to allow for the mere possibility that it was caused by a neurospasm, you suddenly decide that it might have begun 82 milliseconds after impact, an increase of 48%.



Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 11:10:25 PM
Oh boy oh boy. Apparently you do not know what "decerebrate" means and what a "decerebrate reaction" is. Apparently you don't understand that when Sturdivan talked about the beginning and end (terminus) of the "decerebrate reaction," he was referring to the neuromuscular reaction. Instead, you're assuming that when Sturdivan said "and that takes places about a second after the shot," he was only talking about half of the actions he had just described, because you think that the decerebrate reaction is separate from the neuromuscular reaction. First, let's read Sturdivan again:

Now let's see what "decerebrate" means:

That is exactly the reaction that Sturdivan describes seeing in the 2400 fps film, and he calls it "the neuromuscular reaction that I described," which could only refer to the description of the real-time film:

Sturdivan knew what "decerebrate reaction" means, and he used it synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction." His syntax could have been a little clearer, but if you know what "decerebrate" means, you can see he was not saying that the decerebrate reaction was different from the neuromuscular reaction--he knew enough not to make such a fundamental error.

Now that we have that point cleared up, you need to deal with his observation that in "real time" the neuromuscular reaction began about 1000 milliseconds after bullet impact.

Sturdivan may have been using "decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction" ,but you err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". He used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity".
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 11:13:58 PM

Amazing. For the past week or so you have repeatedly said that JFK's head began to move backward 55 milliseconds after bullet impact. I trust I don't need to quote you to yourself. But, well, now that you realize you need that movement to start later--much later--to allow for the mere possibility that it was caused by a neurospasm, you suddenly decide that it might have begun 82 seconds after impact, an increase of 48%.

I have no need to increase it. The goat starts moving after 40 milliseconds. I only meant to clarify that 55 milliseconds is an approximate time. I don’t know if it was 49 milliseconds, 64 milliseconds or 82 milliseconds. I never meant the 55 milliseconds to be some sort of precise estimate. Anymore than I mean 82 milliseconds is a precise estimate.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2020, 11:17:18 PM
What does Mr. Sturdivan mean when he says:

Don’t change the subject. Don’t quote a different portion of the testimony.

Don't change the subject?! You erroneously assumed that Sturdivan was describing two separate reactions in the real-time film because you didn't know what "decerebrate" meant! But now you want to ignore that gaffe and ignore that Sturdivan said the neuromusuclar reaction occurred in about 1000 milliseconds in real time.

Just give me your interpretation of this sentence. My interpretation is that 40 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet, the goat’s body starts to move.

Then please explain what Sturdivan meant when he stated in pretty plain English that in "real time" the reaction took about 1,000 milliseconds. Is "real time" really not real time? Did Sturdivan just egregiously misspeak?



Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 11:18:48 PM
No. I am not measuring time to the nearest frame, but to the nearest tenth of a frame. Each tenth of a frame is roughly 5 milliseconds long.

z-312.0 is when the shutter opens for frame 312. Roughly 27 milliseconds later the shutter closes at z-312.5. Frame z-312 shows images from time z-312.0 through z-312.5.

I believe the bullet struck at z-312.5, or there abouts, right when the shutter closed or very shortly after. Below is a possible, approximate, time scale. Basically, my best very rough estimate:

Vis    Time    Time
able    in      in
        sec.    Zap         Event
----  -----    -------     ---------------
       0.000   z-312.5   Shutter closes.
       0.000   z-312.5   Bullet impact.
       0.001   z-312.5   Bullet leaves head,
                                momentum has been deposited into head,
                                the head starts moving at a steady speed forward.
       0.027   z-313.0   Shutter opens.
vis   0.027   z-313.0       Head is now 1 inch in front of z-312 position, same steady speed
vis   0.055   z-313.5       Head is now 2 inches in front of z-312 position, same steady speed
       0.055   z-313.5   Shutter closes.
       0.077   z-314.0   Shutter opens.
vis   0.082   z-314.1   Neuromuscular spasm commences,
vis                                 Head starts moving back, initially slowly.
vis   0.110   z-314.5   Head is now 1.5 inches ahead of 312.5 position.
       0.110   z-314.5   Shutter closes.

“vis” refers to events that may be visible, because the shutter was open.

Again, this is not to represent exact locations. I don’t have the timing down to the nearest 5 milliseconds. Just a possible scenario consistent with what the Zapruder film shows and William Hoffman’s data.

In this scenario, the neuromuscular spasm started 82 milliseconds after the bullet impact. The real time  of reaction could be a little more, or less.

Thanks for clarifying.

I think that we have been wrongly assuming that the start of the backward head movement was the initiation of the neuromuscular spasm. That backward motion was from the jet effect and the neuromuscular reaction initiated a couple of frames later.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 11:26:22 PM

Then please explain what Sturdivan meant when he stated in pretty plain English that in "real time" the reaction took about 1,000 milliseconds. Is "real time" really not real time? Did Sturdivan just egregiously misspeak?

From "the time that the bullet struck" to the "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" took about 1,000 milliseconds. That's what Sturdivan was saying.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 30, 2020, 11:49:02 PM
First, let's read Sturdivan again:

"About one-tenth of a second after the shot, the goat goes into what one Biophysics Lab colleague, Bob Clare, described as a "swan dive", which results in him leaping out of the back part of the sling." -- page 165, The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, by Larry Sturdivan

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on June 30, 2020, 11:58:11 PM

Actually, I don’t think Mr. Sturdivan made an ambiguous statement.

Quote
This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.

What is the definition of “decerebrate rigidity”?

I looked it up and it is as follows:

decerebrate rigidity a posture found in those with lesions of the upper part of the brainstem. . .

“decerebrate rigidity” is a posture. It is a posture that one assumes, as a result of damage of the brainstem, or severe bilateral lesions of the cerebrum.

When did the goat assume this posture? One second after impact. Not, it started to assume this posture after one second. It means it had reached this posture, with the limbs sprayed out, one second after impact.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 01, 2020, 12:04:23 AM

From "the time that the bullet struck" to the "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" took about 1,000 milliseconds. That's what Sturdivan was saying.

Clearly yes. The end of the decerebrate reaction took place 1,000 milliseconds after impact. The “decerebrate rigidity”, or what I call “the decerebrate posture” was reached 1 second after impact.

decerebrate rigidity: a posture found in those . . .

A animal does not reach this posture the instant they start moving. They reach this posture after the movement is done. Like after 1 second.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 12:32:38 AM
Okay, let us back up and summarize a bit because you two, Joe Elliott and Tim Nickerson, keep jumping around when you are caught in errors and when you cannot provide answers for evidence that contradicts your claims.

* You did not understand that Sturdivan was saying that the neuromuscular reaction was a decerebrate reaction. Not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions, but Sturdivan recognized that the goat’s reaction was decerebrate. You, Joe Elliott, erroneously assumed that Sturdivan was describing two sets of reactions, that the decerebrate reaction was separate from the neuromuscular one, that the decerebrate reaction followed the neuromuscular one, and that the decerebrate reaction alone did not begin until about 1,000 milliseconds after bullet impact—in real time.

* If Sturdivan had said that in the 24 fps film the reaction started in X milliseconds but that in the 2400 fps film it started in Y milliseconds, that would be one thing. But he noted that the 24 fps film was “real time.” You can play a real-time film in slow motion to determine how soon a given reaction starts after a stimulus. You do not just play it at normal playback speed and guess. You can slow it down considerably, and Sturdivan obviously did this. He certainly would not have just guessed after merely viewing the film at normal playback speed.

* The goat’s reaction is nothing like JFK’s reaction. JFK’s arms don’t splay and his back does not arch, unlike the goat’s limbs and back. Furthermore, the goat’s head and neck do not jerk backward, unlike JFK’s head and upper body.

* There is no large explosion of particulate matter from the goat’s head, whereas such an explosion on JFK’s head is obvious in the Zapruder film.

* For the last week or two, you, Joe Elliott, have insisted that JFK’s head begins to move backward 55 milliseconds after bullet impact. You said this over and over. But, well, now that you realize that you need that backward movement to start much later, suddenly you are suggesting that it could have occurred 82 milliseconds after bullet impact, an increase of 48%--that’s a big difference.

* The only two neuroscientists who have commented on JFK’s backward head snap (Robert Zacharko and Joseph Riley) have said that the neuromuscular-reaction theory is “nonsense,” “implausible,” etc., etc., and one of them, Dr. Riley, dismisses the goat test as irrelevant.

* Most of the physicists who have commented on JFK’s backward motion have rejected the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Those few who have not rejected it outright have declined to cite it as the only cause of JFK’s backward movement. Even the HSCA experts hedged their bets and said the movement was caused by one or the other or by a mix of both. Physicists Mantik, Costella, Chambers, Snyder, and Riddle insist that neither phenomena could cause a person’s body to behave the way Kennedy’s body behaves in the Zapruder film from Z312-321 but that this movement must have been caused by contact with an external force in obedience to the laws of physics.

* Human neuromuscular reactions that involve more than an eyelid or two fingers, and that are not the result of auditory stimulus and that do not involve damage to the body, are not going to occur in 55 milliseconds, much less in 40 milliseconds. Not on this planet. The fastest time for such a reaction might be—just might be—100 milliseconds, but more likely 200-600 milliseconds in the majority of such cases.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 01, 2020, 01:00:54 AM

*splayed out

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Great post!

Hey, you would be praying, maybe even splaying, if something like that happened to you.  :)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 01, 2020, 03:29:28 AM

You know Tim, it doesn’t matter if the goat starts moving after 40 or 140 milliseconds. Why? Because we can always say the apparent motion during z313-314 was nothing more than camera blur. If the CTers can claim a two inch movement was camera blur, I don’t know why we couldn’t claim the same for a half inch movement.

Fortunately, we don’t have to resort to the desperate arguments of a Josiah Thompson, who said it was the blurriness of z313 that made it appear that the head had moved forward. And the blurriness of z314. And the blurriness of z315. Why as soon as one accepts the notion that all three frames are blurry, the forward movement problem just goes away. Not until frame z316 could he breathe easy again.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 01, 2020, 08:32:04 AM
Goats are passé.
(https://s7.gifyu.com/images/Goats.gif)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 01, 2020, 10:15:25 AM

PS  A little something for you and all the other "shot-from-the-front" CTers out there to bear in mind:

Back muscles are significantly stronger than stomach muscles.

Hmmm ...

What about neck muscles?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Ted Shields on July 01, 2020, 11:13:29 AM
What about neck muscles?

If all of the bodys muscles tense up, the back "wins" - ie the body will react like JFKs did.

The forward movement on impact makes a shot from the front impossible.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 01:23:39 PM
Sturdivan may have been using "decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction" ,but you err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". He used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity".

So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply. Sturdivan was not a medical scientist of any kind. He made several mistakes when he talked about the medical aspects of Kennedy's movements. Part of the problem seems to be that you have not done enough research on the medical and ballistics evidence to understand what you are reading in some cases.

Here is some reading for you. This is Dr. Donald Thomas’s destruction of Sturdivan’s defense of the neuromusuclar-reaction theory. Dr. Thomas, a research scientist whose work has been published in peer-reviewed forensic journals, shows that Sturdivan got the anatomy wrong, got the muscle functions wrong, and got the medical science wrong, and that the goat film is irrelevant because of the enormous differences in goat and human anatomy and because the goat's movements do not duplicate Kennedy's movements. Dr. Thomas also explains why it would have been impossible—not just improbable or unlikely, but impossible--for a neurospasm to have caused Kennedy’s backward movement.

Quote
The panel [the HSCA’s forensic pathology panel] seems to have confounded different neuromuscular phenomena. . . .  The origin of this scenario is found in the testimony of an expert with the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal, Larry Sturdivan. Sturdivan proposed that because the muscles in the back of the arms and legs are much larger than the ones in the front, and because the muscles of the back are much larger than the abdominals, then stimulation of all the muscles would result in a backward motion.

Sturdivan’s postulate suffers from a patently anomalous notion of anatomy. In any normal person the antagonistic muscles of the lims are balanced, and regardless of the relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the limbs upward, outward, and forward. Backward extension of the limbs is unnatural and awkward, certainly not reflexive. Likewise, the largest muscle in the back, the erector spinae, functions exactly as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright. Neither the erector spinae or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their contraction. The reader is invited to sit on the edge of a bed and attempt to lunge backward by muscle contraction. Such a movement is unnatural, not reflexive, and can be achieved only by relaxing, not clenching, the muscles of the trunk. 

Sturdivan’s concept of muscular anatomy only begins to make sense when one realizes that his standard of reference must have been the goats used in the Army’s terminal ballistics experiments. The muscle arrangement in a quadruped is significantly different from those of a bipedal human. In a goat, the muscles of the legs are designed for a stiff-legged gait, and powerful muscles lever the neck and head against gravity.

Sturdivan exhibited a film to the members of the Assassinations Committee showing the effect of gunshot to the head of a goat. The legs kicked out and the back arched, movements consistent with the natural movements that a startled goat would be expected to make. . . .

The Panel’s mentioning of stiffening of the body suggests that they confounded the decerebrate rigidity exhibited by the goat in its death throes with the mechanism invoked by Sturdivan. . . .  The classic work of the English physiologist Denny-Brown on motor reflexes explained that decerebrate rigidity, also called the “stretch” reflex, is secured by a slow contraction process of the extensor muscles. It is a function of the spinal cord and is a postural reflex, which is to say that as the motor control centers in the brain stem receive feedback indicating a sagging of the body, it induces a reflexive stiffening of the trunk and limbs to break the fall. The arching of the back and agonistic outstretching of the limbs characterizes this response. President Kennedy did not react in this way. The rearward movement of the head began at impact, without the delay or latency that characterizes the extensor reflex of decerebrate rigidity. . . .

Sturdivan explained his theory of a neuromuscular reaction as a mechanical stimulation of the brain stem incuding a massive neurogenic surge resulting in contraction of the skeletal muscles. Actually, neurologists recognize a convulsive reaction to brain damage as post-traumatic motor seizures. . . .  Such post-traumatic motor seizures occur with high incidence in penetrating head injuries. But, the muscular convulsions associated with destruction of the brain do not result from a massive surge of impulses from the brain, as was the case with the Moro reflex, but rather from removal of the control function that inhibits spastic, convulsive muscular seizures. Consequently there is an inherent delay or latency period before the onset of convulsions. There was no delay in the rearward movement of the President’s head.

Because a spastic movement toward the shooter is evidenced in some execution films, one or another of these neuromuscular phenomena must be involved in those cases. It is therefore plausible that someone suffering a catastrophic destruction of the brain from a shot in the head would respond with an explosive motor spasm. Thus, a brain-traumatized person in a sitting position might lunge backward caused by a thrust of the legs against the floor as posited by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. It is also clear, however, that this did not happen in the case of President Kennedy. Slow motion examination of the Zapruder film by the ITEK corporation demonstrated that the head snapped backward first, with the shoulders following, with the body then toppling over backward and to the left. Had an explosive motor spasm occurred, a sort of Grand Mal seizure, the shoulders and the head would have jerked backward at the same time. Nothing like that happened.

One might even ask: why didn’t it happen? Would not the destruction of the brain result in a convulsive muscular spasm as it did in the test-shot goat? The obvious answer lies in the fact that the President’s spinal cord had been traumatized 5 seconds before the head shot. Without a functional spinal cord, the spasmodic muscular convulsions seen in head-traumatized victims cannot be induced. Sturdivan acknowledged in testimony that if the President’s spinal cord had been severed by the earlier shot to the base of the neck, then the neuromuscular reaction that he had postulated could not have happened.

But Sturdivan offered as evidence for the presence of cord function the “fact” that Kennedy had grasped at his throat wound. Sturdivan’s grasp of the evidence indicates a greater familiarity with the Warren Commission’s distorted version of events than with neuromuscular physiology. (Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010, pp. 332-335)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 01, 2020, 07:27:10 PM
So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply. Sturdivan was not a medical scientist of any kind. He made several mistakes when he talked about the medical aspects of Kennedy's movements. Part of the problem seems to be that you have not done enough research on the medical and ballistics evidence to understand what you are reading in some cases.

I haven't misread Sturdivan's testimony at all. You have. In claiming that Sturdivan was saying that  the neuromuscular reaction began about 1000 milliseconds after bullet impact, you were obviously working under the false assumption that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction".


Quote
Here is some reading for you. This is Dr. Donald Thomas’s destruction of Sturdivan’s defense of the neuromusuclar-reaction theory. Dr. Thomas, a research scientist whose work has been published in peer-reviewed forensic journals, shows that Sturdivan got the anatomy wrong, got the muscle functions wrong, and got the medical science wrong, and that the goat film is irrelevant because of the enormous differences in goat and human anatomy and because the goat's movements do not duplicate Kennedy's movements. Dr. Thomas also explains why it would have been impossible—not just improbable or unlikely, but impossible--for a neurospasm to have caused Kennedy’s backward movement.

Thomas' area of expertise is the study of insects. Sturdivan's expertise is wound ballistics. Sturdivan has also had his work published in peer-reviewed forensics journals. One such being "BALLISTICS FOR THE NEUROSURGEON" published in Neurosurgery, which is the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. His work has also been published in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Journal of Surgical Research, and  Computers in Biology and Medicine, to name a few others. Thomas should stick to what he knows and quit embarassing himself by foraying into areas beyond his ken.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 07:56:09 PM
I haven't misread Sturdivan's testimony at all. You have. In claiming that Sturdivan was saying that  the neuromuscular reaction began about 1000 milliseconds after bullet impact, you were obviously working under the false assumption that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction".

You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction." You can Google them and learn this for yourself.

Thomas' area of expertise is the study of insects.

Yes, his main field of expertise is entomology, but his research on forensic/ballistics/acoustics issues has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including Science and Justice. He has also had over 100 articles published in scientific journals.

Sturdivan's expertise is wound ballistics. Sturdivan has also had his work published in peer-reviewed forensics journals. One such being "BALLISTICS FOR THE NEUROSURGEON" published in Neurosurgery, which is the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. His work has also been published in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Journal of Surgical Research, and  Computers in Biology and Medicine, to name a few others. Thomas should stick to what he knows and quit embarassing himself by foraying into areas beyond his ken.

Wow, really? So that's your answer: Dr. Thomas doesn't know what he's talking about regarding human anatomy and neuro reactions? Wow, uh-huh.  Never mind that neuroscientists Joe Riley and Robert Zacharko have likewise said that the neuromuscular-reaction theory is nonsense, right? And never mind that you guys can't cite a single neuroscientist who is willing to say that JFK's backward movement could have been caused by a neurospasm, right?

I'm guessing that you probably did not even understand half of what Dr. Thomas said, but you just know that you can't accept his observations and arguments because they don't agree with your neuromuscular-reaction fantasy.

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 01, 2020, 11:01:25 PM
You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction."

VS

So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply.

Perhaps you are having a rough day?  (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/h/hmm-1367.gif)

Again, Sturdivan was using "decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction", but you err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". He used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity".  "Decerebrate rigidity" is NOT the same thing as "decerebrate reaction". It is the end point of a "decerebrate reaction".
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 01, 2020, 11:11:35 PM
Never mind that neuroscientists Joe Riley and Robert Zacharko have likewise said that the neuromuscular-reaction theory is nonsense, right? And never mind that you guys can't cite a single neuroscientist who is willing to say that JFK's backward movement could have been caused by a neurospasm, right?

Neuroscientist? Didn't Zacharko teach psychology at Carleton? Maybe I should ask Jordan Peterson what he thinks.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 02, 2020, 01:33:12 PM
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 07:56:09 PM
You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction."

VS

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 01, 2020, 01:23:39 PM
So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply.

Your dishonest parsing of my words is downright silly. There is no conflict between those two statements. In the 1:23 reply I simply observed that I had not said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." In the reply in question, I did not say anything about how he used the term "decerebrate rigidity." In the 1:23 reply, I was not denying that he did so but was simply pointing out that I had not said that he did. I guess to anticipate your dishonest parsing of my words, I should have added that I would not have been wrong to have said that he used the terms synonymously, but my point was to simply observe that Joe Elliott attributed a statement to me that I did not make.

I notice you didn't bother to quote the part of my reply where I explained that not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions and that Sturdivan said that the goat's neuromuscular reaction was a decerebrate reaction.

Again, Sturdivan was using "decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction", but you err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". He used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity".  "Decerebrate rigidity" is NOT the same thing as "decerebrate reaction". It is the end point of a "decerebrate reaction".

Wrong. You didn't even bother to Google this, did you? Or perhaps you did but did not grasp what you were reading. Let us see what a quick Google search turns up about "decerebrate rigidity" and "decerebrate response." Sturdivan used the term "decerebrate reaction" but the standard term is "decerebrate response." Two other common synonyms are "decerebrate posturing" and "extensor posturing." Let us take a look:

"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing. It describes the involuntary extension of the upper extremities in response to external stimuli." (http://web.as.uky.edu/biology/faculty/cooper/bio535/chapter%2016-liz.pdf)

"In decerebrate posturing (also called decerebrate response or rigidity), the abnormal posturing is characterized by the arms extending at the sides." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)

"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing)

"Also known as extensor posturing, decerebrate rigidity is a term that describes the involuntary extensor positioning of the arms, flexion of the hands, with knee extension and plantar flexion when stimulated as a result of a midbrain lesion." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)

And since you have just waved aside Dr. Thomas's demolition of Sturdivan's defense of the neuromuscular-reaction theory, I guess there's no point in trying to get you to actually address Dr. Thomas's points.






Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 02, 2020, 06:56:54 PM

Wow, really? So that's your answer: Dr. Thomas doesn't know what he's talking about regarding human anatomy and neuro reactions? Wow, uh-huh.  Never mind that neuroscientists Joe Riley and Robert Zacharko have likewise said that the neuromuscular-reaction theory is nonsense, right? And never mind that you guys can't cite a single neuroscientist who is willing to say that JFK's backward movement could have been caused by a neurospasm, right?

Neuroscientist? Didn't Zacharko teach psychology at Carleton? Maybe I should ask Jordan Peterson what he thinks.

When am I going to learn not to trust what a CTer tells me?

Dr. Robert Zacharko – Neuroscientist ? ! ? ! ?

What information do I find about Dr. Zacharko on the internet:

Robert M. Zacharko, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario Canada

By the way, Dr. Zacharko passed away at the age of 63 on January 4, 2016.

The website for the Carleton Institute of Neuroscience says:

http://www3.carleton.ca/calendars/archives/grad/9798/SCIENCE/Institute_of_Neuroscience.htm

Quote
Neuroscience is an emerging academic discipline that includes physiological, anatomical, biochemical, and behavioural studies of the nervous system

It would appear that Dr. Zacharko concentrated on behavioural studies, hence his working for the university as a Professor of Psychology.

It doesn’t sound like he was specializing in studying the nitty ditty details of what can cause neurons to fire.

But I suppose it doesn’t matter. Nervous System Researchers, Psychologists, doctors who specialize in treating nasal infections, there all head doctors, right? That makes them all neuroscientists.

And Dr. Donald Thomas? Well, insects have heads. So, I guess that makes him a neuroscientist as well.


Thank you Tim. Great find.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 03, 2020, 05:17:52 AM
Your dishonest parsing of my words is downright silly. There is no conflict between those two statements. In the 1:23 reply I simply observed that I had not said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." In the reply in question, I did not say anything about how he used the term "decerebrate rigidity." In the 1:23 reply, I was not denying that he did so but was simply pointing out that I had not said that he did. I guess to anticipate your dishonest parsing of my words, I should have added that I would not have been wrong to have said that he used the terms synonymously, but my point was to simply observe that Joe Elliott attributed a statement to me that I did not make.

I notice you didn't bother to quote the part of my reply where I explained that not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions and that Sturdivan said that the goat's neuromuscular reaction was a decerebrate reaction.

I quoted two statements from you word for word. How is that me dishonestly parsing your words? Contrary to your understanding, the two statements are in conflict with one another.

You don't even know what you're talking about. "Deceberate rigidity" is the same thing as "deceberate reaction." They are two terms for the same action, and Sturdivan used both as synonyms for "neuromuscular reaction."

VS

So you are still trying to salvage your misreading of Sturdivan’s testimony? Sad. I never said that Sturdivan used "decerebrate rigidity" as a synonym for "neuromuscular reaction." Go back and read my reply.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 03, 2020, 05:19:37 AM

Wrong. You didn't even bother to Google this, did you? Or perhaps you did but did not grasp what you were reading. Let us see what a quick Google search turns up about "decerebrate rigidity" and "decerebrate response." Sturdivan used the term "decerebrate reaction" but the standard term is "decerebrate response." Two other common synonyms are "decerebrate posturing" and "extensor posturing." Let us take a look:

"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing. It describes the involuntary extension of the upper extremities in response to external stimuli." (http://web.as.uky.edu/biology/faculty/cooper/bio535/chapter%2016-liz.pdf)

"In decerebrate posturing (also called decerebrate response or rigidity), the abnormal posturing is characterized by the arms extending at the sides." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)

"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing)

"Also known as extensor posturing, decerebrate rigidity is a term that describes the involuntary extensor positioning of the arms, flexion of the hands, with knee extension and plantar flexion when stimulated as a result of a midbrain lesion." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)

And since you have just waved aside Dr. Thomas's demolition of Sturdivan's defense of the neuromuscular-reaction theory, I guess there's no point in trying to get you to actually address Dr. Thomas's points.

I don't need to google anything on this, Sturdivan used "terminus of the decerebrate reaction" synonymously with "decerebrate rigidity". You err in assuming that he was using "decerebrate rigidity" synonymously with "neuromuscular reaction". I'm sorry, but you do.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 03, 2020, 05:22:06 AM
When am I going to learn not to trust what a CTer tells me?

Dr. Robert Zacharko – Neuroscientist ? ! ? ! ?

What information do I find about Dr. Zacharko on the internet:

Robert M. Zacharko, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario Canada

By the way, Dr. Zacharko passed away at the age of 63 on January 4, 2016.

The website for the Carleton Institute of Neuroscience says:

http://www3.carleton.ca/calendars/archives/grad/9798/SCIENCE/Institute_of_Neuroscience.htm

It would appear that Dr. Zacharko concentrated on behavioural studies, hence his working for the university as a Professor of Psychology.

It doesn’t sound like he was specializing in studying the nitty ditty details of what can cause neurons to fire.

But I suppose it doesn’t matter. Nervous System Researchers, Psychologists, doctors who specialize in treating nasal infections, there all head doctors, right? That makes them all neuroscientists.

And Dr. Donald Thomas? Well, insects have heads. So, I guess that makes him a neuroscientist as well.


Thank you Tim. Great find.

I think that there is, or was, another Dr. Robert Zacharko at the same University. Probably Jr's father. Same field, I believe.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 03, 2020, 06:40:21 AM
I think that there is, or was, another Dr. Robert Zacharko at the same University. Probably Jr's father. Same field, I believe.

Tim

Robert M. Zacharko was born on April 13, 1952, to Nicolas and Olga Zacharko. So, the “Neuroscientist” was not his father. However, he had a son named Bobby (Robert). Michael Griffith communicated with Dr. Robert Zacharko on February 8, 1999, when Dr. Zacharko would have been 46 years old. I doubt that his son, with a father only 46 years old, would have been the neuroscientist who responded to Mr. Griffith’s email. I think the 46-year-old Psychology professor was the so called “Neuroscientist” who responded to Mr. Griffith’s enquires, and who Mr. Griffith always referred to as a Neuroscientist.

As far as I know, the son, Bobby, has never been a professor at Carleton University. I did not find any information about the son, except his name.

So that was the scientist who said the neuromuscular spasm was impossible. A Psychology professor. I think the authority sounds more impressive when referred to as a “Neuroscientist”, don’t you?

Joe
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 03, 2020, 07:30:15 AM
Tim

Robert M. Zacharko was born on April 13, 1952, to Nicolas and Olga Zacharko. So, the “Neuroscientist” was not his father. However, he had a son named Bobby (Robert). Michael Griffith communicated with Dr. Robert Zacharko on February 8, 1999, when Dr. Zacharko would have been 46 years old. I doubt that his son, with a father only 46 years old, would have been the neuroscientist who responded to Mr. Griffith’s email. I think the 46-year-old Psychology professor was the so called “Neuroscientist” who responded to Mr. Griffith’s enquires, and who Mr. Griffith always referred to as a Neuroscientist.

As far as I know, the son, Bobby, has never been a professor at Carleton University. I did not find any information about the son, except his name.

So that was the scientist who said the neuromuscular spasm was impossible. A Psychology professor. I think the authority sounds more impressive when referred to as a “Neuroscientist”, don’t you?

Joe

LOL! A perfect example of how someone can easily be so wrong. Just like Carl Day was in April of 1964.  When I did DDG search for Dr. Robert M. Zacharko, I had two of them come up and they both had been tenured at Carleton. I read right away that one of them had died at 63 years of age. The other one was showing to be 82. It turns out that the 82 was the number of Robert M. Zacharko's research works.  (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/blushy-1027.gif)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 03, 2020, 06:36:09 PM

LOL! A perfect example of how someone can easily be so wrong. Just like Carl Day was in April of 1964.  When I did DDG search for Dr. Robert M. Zacharko, I had two of them come up and they both had been tenured at Carleton. I read right away that one of them had died at 63 years of age. The other one was showing to be 82. It turns out that the 82 was the number of Robert M. Zacharko's research works.  (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/blushy-1027.gif)

Yes. I was puzzled about how a neuroscientist, or any scientist, could say the neuromuscular spasm couldn’t happen. With the proper scientific attitude, when asked “Could a neuromuscular spasm happen in a human”, he would in turn ask “What do films say”. When the answer was “We don’t have any such films and cannot obtain any”, the next question the scientist would ask was “What do films of animals show”. If the such films showed no reaction, he might say a neuromuscular spasm was unlikely, or might still withhold judgement. But if the films do show that animals have a neuromuscular spasm, a true scientist would either say “A neuromuscular spasm would likely occur in humans as well”, or perhaps “I still prefer to withhold judgement”, but certainly not “A neuromuscular spasm could never take place in a human, only in non-human animals”. There would be no basis for such an opinion.

However, a Psychology professor might come away with a different opinion. After looking at the film, I sense a certain frustration in the goat. It was as if, no matter how hard he tried, he was never able to meet his parents expectations. This built in frustration could release itself violently, if shot in the head. However, JFK showed no such signs of similar feelings toward his parents. I think Dr. Zacharko must have come to similar conclusions.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 04, 2020, 02:46:34 AM
Yes. I was puzzled about how a neuroscientist, or any scientist, could say the neuromuscular spasm couldn’t happen. With the proper scientific attitude, when asked “Could a neuromuscular spasm happen in a human”, he would in turn ask “What do films say”. When the answer was “We don’t have any such films and cannot obtain any”, the next question the scientist would ask was “What do films of animals show”. If the such films showed no reaction, he might say a neuromuscular spasm was unlikely, or might still withhold judgement. But if the films do show that animals have a neuromuscular spasm, a true scientist would either say “A neuromuscular spasm would likely occur in humans as well”, or perhaps “I still prefer to withhold judgement”, but certainly not “A neuromuscular spasm could never take place in a human, only in non-human animals”. There would be no basis for such an opinion.

However, a Psychology professor might come away with a different opinion. After looking at the film, I sense a certain frustration in the goat. It was as if, no matter how hard he tried, he was never able to meet his parents expectations. This built in frustration could release itself violently, if shot in the head. However, JFK showed no such signs of similar feelings toward his parents. I think Dr. Zacharko must have come to similar conclusions.

 ;D
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 04, 2020, 02:39:14 PM
When am I going to learn not to trust what a CTer tells me?

Dr. Robert Zacharko – Neuroscientist ? ! ? ! ?

What information do I find about Dr. Zacharko on the internet:

Robert M. Zacharko, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario Canada

By the way, Dr. Zacharko passed away at the age of 63 on January 4, 2016.

The website for the Carleton Institute of Neuroscience says:

http://www3.carleton.ca/calendars/archives/grad/9798/SCIENCE/Institute_of_Neuroscience.htm

It would appear that Dr. Zacharko concentrated on behavioural studies, hence his working for the university as a Professor of Psychology.

It doesn’t sound like he was specializing in studying the nitty ditty details of what can cause neurons to fire.

But I suppose it doesn’t matter. Nervous System Researchers, Psychologists, doctors who specialize in treating nasal infections, there all head doctors, right? That makes them all neuroscientists.

Just how shoddy can your research be? FYI, Dr. Zacharko received his PhD specializing in the study of neuroscience, and as a professor he taught neuroscience. I quote from his obituary in the Montreal Gazette:

Quote
Robert Michael Zacharko, 63, of Ottawa, Ontario, passed away on Monday, January 4, 2016 following a long illness. Bob was born April 13, 1952 in Montréal, Quebec to Nicolas and Olga Zacharko (nee Wishnoska). He finished his secondary studies at Cardinal Newman High School and went on to complete his undergraduate degree at Concordia University in Montreal. Post-graduate studies followed at University of Saskatoon where he received his doctorate specializing in the study of neuroscience. He finished his career as a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University. Bob was an active teacher and researcher throughout his career, introducing thousands of students to the study of neuroscience and guiding many through their undergraduate and graduate thesis projects. (https://montrealgazette.remembering.ca/obituary/robert-zacharko-1066570676)

Perhaps this is why so many peer-reviewed journals published articles on neuroscience written by Dr. Zacharko:

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/38179926_Robert_M_Zacharko

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03704.x

And Dr. Donald Thomas? Well, insects have heads. So, I guess that makes him a neuroscientist as well.

Humm, well, you guys have had no problem citing scholars who were commenting on subjects outside their PhD major. Numerous pro-WC books and articles cite the research of John Lattimer on ballistics and forensic issues, even though Lattimer was a urologist by training.

And just in this thread, you guys have cited Sturdivan, a ballistics guy, on issues relating to anatomy and neuroscience.

Your and Nickerson's answer to Dr. Thomas's factual observations about the errors that Sturdivan made on anatomy and neuroscience is to dismiss his observations because Dr. Thomas is an entomologist.

So is Dr. Thomas wrong when he notes that "in any normal person the antagonistic muscles of the limbs are balanced, and regardless of the relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the limbs upward, outward, and forward"? Is he wrong when he points out that "Backward extension of the limbs is unnatural and awkward, certainly not reflexive"? Is he wrong when he observes that "the largest muscle in the back, the erector spinae, functions exactly as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright" and that "Neither the erector spinae or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their contraction"? WHY is he wrong? On what basis do you say that he is wrong and that Sturdivan is right on these issues?

And is Dr. Thomas wrong when, citing a classic study on human motor reflexes, he points out that:

Quote
The classic work of the English physiologist Denny-Brown on motor reflexes explained that decerebrate rigidity, also called the “stretch” reflex, is secured by a slow contraction process of the extensor muscles. It is a function of the spinal cord and is a postural reflex, which is to say that as the motor control centers in the brain stem receive feedback indicating a sagging of the body, it induces a reflexive stiffening of the trunk and limbs to break the fall. The arching of the back and agonistic outstretching of the limbs characterizes this response. President Kennedy did not react in this way.

WHY is Dr. Thomas wrong and Sturdivan right on this issue? Just because you wish it were so? How can you get on a public board and with a straight face claim that Kennedy reacted by "arching of the back and agonistic outstretching of the limbs"? Dr. Thomas is right: Kennedy's reaction does not resemble a decerebrate response. If you insist on claiming that Dr. Thomas is wrong about this, you must have a version of the Zapruder film that no one else has seen.

 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 05, 2020, 02:41:00 AM

Just how shoddy can your research be? FYI, Dr. Zacharko received his PhD specializing in the study of neuroscience, and as a professor he taught neuroscience. I quote from his obituary in the Montreal Gazette:

Perhaps this is why so many peer-reviewed journals published articles on neuroscience written by Dr. Zacharko:

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/38179926_Robert_M_Zacharko

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03704.x

Dr. Zacharko can be called a neuroscientist because any professor of psychology can be called a neuroscientist. But I don’t think a “professor of psychology” is what pops into someone’s mind when you say “neuroscientist”.

As the Carleton University website says:

Neuroscience is an emerging academic discipline that includes physiological, anatomical, biochemical, and behavioural studies of the nervous system

There are 4 disciplines that neuroscience covers:

1.   Physiological studies.
2.   Anatomical studies.
3.   Biochemical studies.
4.   Behavioral studies.

Of the four, Behavioral studies is the least useful field of study on forming an opinion of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis.

So, yes, while by convention, a professor of psychology is considered to be a “neuroscientist”, he is not really the appropriate type of scientist to go to for getting an answer to this question.



Humm, well, you guys have had no problem citing scholars who were commenting on subjects outside their PhD major. Numerous pro-WC books and articles cite the research of John Lattimer on ballistics and forensic issues, even though Lattimer was a urologist by training.

A urologist is also a real medical doctor. He has the full training any other medical doctors has in treating all sorts of problems, including wounds. And so, even though he was a “urologist”, he was drafted by the U. S. Army, served a doctor with the Third army and treated many casualties, many, no doubt from bullet wounds.

The Kennedy family chose him to make the first nongovernmental examination of the Kennedy autopsy material. No doubt, in part, due to his extensive experience in treating bullet wounds. He had more experience with this than most non-urologist doctors.

I wouldn’t have a problem with Dr. Zacharko if he had just observed film of animals being shot in the brain with rifle bullets. But as far as I can tell, he did none of those things. As far as I know, he was just a professor of psychology. In contrast, Dr. Lattimer did have extensive experience with bullet wounds and had the sort of experiences useful in examining the assassination case.

Indeed, I would give more weight to a professor of psychology, who bases his opinion on observations of real animals being shot through the brain over a neurologist who specializes in Biochemical studies of nerves, but does not observe these films, but forms his opinions purely from theory.


And just in this thread, you guys have cited Sturdivan, a ballistics guy, on issues relating to anatomy and neuroscience.

Who gets his arguments from doctors, like Dr. Lattimer. On this issue, Larry Sturdivan’s opinions are those of Dr. Lattimer’s. I trust Dr. Lattimer’s opinion over that of Dr. Thomas, an entomologist, and over Dr. Zacharko, an professor of psychology.

Yes, if these opinions were first developed by Mr. Sturdivan, I would say he is developing opinions way outside of his area of expertise. But there is nothing wrong with him relating to us the opinions developed by Dr. Lattimer.

A quote from Dr. Lattimer on the neuromuscular spasm:

Quote
The body then stiffens with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck. Since these are the back muscles and the muscles of the back of the neck, the neck arches, the back arches, and the body stiffens into an archlike configuration; upper limbs react next.

Dr. Thomas is right: Kennedy's reaction does not resemble a decerebrate response. If you insist on claiming that Dr. Thomas is wrong about this, you must have a version of the Zapruder film that no one else has seen.

No, the decerebrate response is the final posture an animal gets into, with certain types of brain damage. For an animal shot through the brain:
1.   First the neuromuscular spasm occurs. For a quadraped:
Head pulled upward (when not locked in place)
The back arches
The forelimbs kick forward and outward.
The hindlimbs kick backwards.
2.   Followed by the “decerebrate rigidity”, a certain posture an animal ends up in, caused by certain types of brain damage.

You keep confusing “decerebrate response” with “neuromuscular spasm”.

As Mr. Sturdivan explained, the goat went into a neuromuscular spasm starting 40 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet. By one second after the impact, the animal was in decerebrate rigidity, which is a certain body position, its final body position now that death had occurred.

No one is claiming that the President moving his head back, moving his torso back, moving his arms up, as an example of him getting into the decerebrate rigidity position. Instead this is the first phase, the neuromuscular spasm.
 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 05, 2020, 04:37:05 AM
Dr. Zacharko can be called a neuroscientist because any professor of psychology can be called a neuroscientist. But I don’t think a “professor of psychology” is what pops into someone’s mind when you say “neuroscientist”.

As the Carleton University website says:

Neuroscience is an emerging academic discipline that includes physiological, anatomical, biochemical, and behavioural studies of the nervous system

There are 4 disciplines that neuroscience covers:

1.   Physiological studies.
2.   Anatomical studies.
3.   Biochemical studies.
4.   Behavioral studies.

Of the four, Behavioral studies is the least useful field of study on forming an opinion of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis.

So, yes, while by convention, a professor of psychology is considered to be a “neuroscientist”, he is not really the appropriate type of scientist to go to for getting an answer to this question.

It seems you go to extreme lengths to salvage errant claims, rather than just admit you were wrong. I notice you said nothing about all the articles that Dr. Zacharko had published on neuroscience, many of which dealt with brain functions, brain anatomy, neural responses to stimuli, biochemical processes in the brain, etc., etc. You just skipped over that fact.

When Dr. Zacharko was a professor at The Carleton Institute of Neuroscience, here are some of the classes that were offered that were classified as psychology classes:

Psychology 49.520T2 (PSY6201)
Basics of Neuroscience
A comprehensive neuroscience course from membrane and cellular levels to neural systems and behaviour. Lectures and tutorials will cover such aspects of neuroscience as neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, behavioural neuroscience, and neuropharmacology.

Psychology 49.620T2
Advanced Seminar in Neuroscience
A comprehensive proseminar covering specialized topics in neuroscience and biopsychology. The presentations will focus on the active research areas and interests of faculty members and will provide an in-depth coverage of research strategies, methods and results. Graduate student presentations of current research projects will be an integral part of the course.

These two biology classes were also offered as psychology classes:

Biology 61.623F1
Neuroscience Techniques I
Completion of a research project carried out under the supervision of a neuroscience faculty member.  Students may carry out their project in any department participating in the neuroscience specialization provided they have approval from the administrative head of their particular program. For example, students in the neuroscience specialization must obtain approval from the neuroscience committee.  Students in the biopsychology concentration must obtain approval from the Department of Psychology. The purpose of the course is to grant credit for learning new research techniques.
(Also offered as Psychology 49.624)

Biology 61.624W1
Neuroscience Techniques II
Completion of a research project carried out under the supervision of a neuroscience faculty member.  Students may carry out their project in any department participating in the neuroscience specialization provided they have approval from the administrative head of their particular program. For example, students in the neuroscience specialization must obtain approval from the neuroscience committee.  Students in the biopsychology concentration must obtain approval from the Department of Psychology. The purpose of the course is to grant credit for learning new research techniques.
(Also offered as Psychology 49.625)

See: http://www3.carleton.ca/calendars/archives/grad/9798/SCIENCE/Institute_of_Neuroscience.htm

A urologist is also a real medical doctor. He has the full training any other medical doctors has in treating all sorts of problems, including wounds. And so, even though he was a “urologist”, he was drafted by the U. S. Army, served a doctor with the Third army and treated many casualties, many, no doubt from bullet wounds.

The Kennedy family chose him to make the first nongovernmental examination of the Kennedy autopsy material. No doubt, in part, due to his extensive experience in treating bullet wounds. He had more experience with this than most non-urologist doctors.

Lattimer was a fraud who was repeatedly caught misrepresenting his findings and experiments, misrepresenting his sources, rigging his experiments, making erroneous statements, and in a few cases simply making up stuff out of thin air, e.g., his hoax about the Thorburn position.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam-thor.htm
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/john-lattimer-never-quit-the-thorburn-business
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/thomas-lattimer-and-reality-a-study-in-contrasts
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lattimer%20John%20Dr/Item%2003.pdf
http://22november1963.org.uk/governor-john-connally-lapel-flap

I wouldn’t have a problem with Dr. Zacharko if he had just observed film of animals being shot in the brain with rifle bullets. But as far as I can tell, he did none of those things.

Dr. Zacharko didn't need to watch the goat films because they are irrelevant to the assassination, because human brains are not goat brains, because human anatomy is different from goat anatomy, and because JFK's reaction to the head shot looks nothing like the goat's reaction to its head shot. Why do you keep ignoring these facts?

Dr. Zacharko analyzed Kennedy's reaction based on his knowledge of how the human brain functions and on his knowledge of what physical responses the human brain would and would not cause. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? He did not analyze it from a ballistics point of view, but as a neuroscientist, since he was asked about the neuromuscular-reaction theory.

Indeed, I would give more weight to a professor of psychology, who bases his opinion on observations of real animals being shot through the brain over a neurologist who specializes in Biochemical studies of nerves, but does not observe these films, but forms his opinions purely from theory.

Are you ever, ever, ever going to address the point, made by several scholars, that the goat films are irrelevant for the reasons already stated, the same reasons that have been presented to you four or five times now? Ignoring them will not make them go away.

Even the HSCA's forensic pathology panel noted that Kennedy’s reaction looked nothing like the goat’s reaction in the goat films.

Who gets his arguments from doctors, like Dr. Lattimer. On this issue, Larry Sturdivan’s opinions are those of Dr. Lattimer’s. I trust Dr. Lattimer’s opinion over that of Dr. Thomas, an entomologist, and over Dr. Zacharko, an professor of psychology.

Of course you do, because Lattimer said what you want to believe. You don't care that Lattimer and Sturdivan had no training in neuroscience, whereas Dr. Zacharko had tons of such training and also taught classes on neuroscience.

Dr. Thomas has watched all of the goat films and has explained in great detail why they are irrelevant, and he supports his explanation with research from a classic work on motor reflexes.

I notice you declined to explain why you claim that Dr. Thomas's observations in his critique of Sturdivan's claims are wrong. Will you ever explain why you claim Dr. Thomas is wrong and Sturdivan is right?

Yes, if these opinions were first developed by Mr. Sturdivan, I would say he is developing opinions way outside of his area of expertise. But there is nothing wrong with him relating to us the opinions developed by Dr. Lattimer.

A quote from Dr. Lattimer on the neuromuscular spasm:

No, the decerebrate response is the final posture an animal gets into, with certain types of brain damage. For an animal shot through the brain:
1.   First the neuromuscular spasm occurs. For a quadraped:
Head pulled upward (when not locked in place)
The back arches
The forelimbs kick forward and outward.
The hindlimbs kick backwards.
2.   Followed by the “decerebrate rigidity”, a certain posture an animal ends up in, caused by certain types of brain damage.

I have already quoted several scholarly sources on the fact that "decerebrate response" and "decerebrate rigidity" are synonyms. Did you miss that reply? In fact, heck, let's read those quotes again:

"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing. It describes the involuntary extension of the upper extremities in response to external stimuli." (http://web.as.uky.edu/biology/faculty/cooper/bio535/chapter%2016-liz.pdf)

"In decerebrate posturing (also called decerebrate response or rigidity), the abnormal posturing is characterized by the arms extending at the sides." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)

"Decerebrate posturing is also called decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, or extensor posturing." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing)

"Also known as extensor posturing, decerebrate rigidity is a term that describes the involuntary extensor positioning of the arms, flexion of the hands, with knee extension and plantar flexion when stimulated as a result of a midbrain lesion." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547687/)

Are you saying that those neuroscientific sources are wrong and that Dr. Lattimer was right? On what basis? Because you don't want to admit that Lattimer was wrong?

You keep confusing “decerebrate response” with “neuromuscular spasm”.

You know that's false, or else you can't read. As I've pointed out three or four times now, not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions, but Sturdivan identified JFK's alleged neuromuscular reaction as a decerebrate reaction. I've already gone over this ground for you in detail and quoted Sturdivan several times in the process.

I guess you want everyone to forget that at the outset of our discussion, you did not understand that Sturdivan was saying that the neuromuscular reaction was a decerebrate reaction. You erroneously assumed that Sturdivan was describing two sets of reactions, that the decerebrate reaction was separate from the neuromuscular one, that the decerebrate reaction followed the neuromuscular one.

As Mr. Sturdivan explained, the goat went into a neuromuscular spasm starting 40 milliseconds after the impact of the bullet.

Sturdivan specified that in "real time" the reaction took about 1 second. You can keep ignoring this fact all day and night, and you can keep citing the 40-millisecond time, but when are you going to deal with the fact that the fastest human reaction time for human movements that are even halfway equivalent to the goat's movements is 100 milliseconds?

And shall we mention again that the goat's reaction looks nothing like Kennedy's reaction? Sorry, but I'm going to just keep hammering this fact, because you keep ignoring it.

By one second after the impact, the animal was in decerebrate rigidity, which is a certain body position, its final body position now that death had occurred.

You're misreading Sturdivan again because you don't know what you're talking about, or else you're mischaracterizing him to avoid admitting error.  Shall we read Sturdivan yet again? How many times do you need this explained to you? And, before I quote Sturdivan again, allow me to note that Sturdivan, unlike you, at least understood that "decerebrate rigidity" and "decerebrate reaction/response" are synonyms:

Quote
The first sequence will be a normal 24-frame-per-second view of this. This is a real time. First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead.

The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction (1 HSCA 416).

Two paragraphs later, Sturdivan then describes this reaction again and calls it "the neuromuscular reaction that I described." The only reaction he described is the decerebrate reaction two paragraphs earlier. Anyone reading his statements honestly and objectively can plainly see that he was saying that Kennedy's alleged neurospasm was a decerebrate reaction.

No one is claiming that the President moving his head back, moving his torso back, moving his arms up, as an example of him getting into the decerebrate rigidity position. Instead this is the first phase, the neuromuscular spasm.

You either still don't know what you're talking about or you're just not willing to admit error. Go back and read my quotes herein from several scholarly sources on the fact that "decerebrate rigidity" means the same thing as "decerebrate response" and on the fact that the two terms are used interchangeably in scientific literature.

It's bad enough that you keep ignoring documented facts, but it's even worse that you keep repeating erroneous claims that have been debunked by those documented facts.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 05, 2020, 05:44:43 AM

A quote from Dr. Lattimer on the neuromuscular spasm:

No, the decerebrate response is the final posture an animal gets into, with certain types of brain damage. For an animal shot through the brain:
1.   First the neuromuscular spasm occurs. For a quadraped:
Head pulled upward (when not locked in place)
The back arches
The forelimbs kick forward and outward.
The hindlimbs kick backwards.
2.   Followed by the “decerebrate rigidity”, a certain posture an animal ends up in, caused by certain types of brain damage.

You keep confusing “decerebrate response” with “neuromuscular spasm”.

I don't recall Sturdivan using the term “decerebrate response”.  He did seem to be using decerebrate reaction synonymously with neuromuscular reaction. To me, response and reaction have the same meaning. I think that you may be erroneously equating “decerebrate response” with "decerebrate rigidity".
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 05, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Lattimer was a fraud who was repeatedly caught misrepresenting his findings and experiments, misrepresenting his sources, rigging his experiments, making erroneous statements, and in a few cases simply making up stuff out of thin air, e.g., his hoax about the Thorburn position.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Thorburn+position

(http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/h/hmm-1367.gif)

It seems that Lattimer has got the last laugh. Lattimer was not wrong. He wasn't perfect but he wasn't the shyster that you claim him to be.

Quote
Sturdivan specified that in "real time" the reaction took about 1 second. You can keep ignoring this fact all day and night, and you can keep citing the 40-millisecond time, but when are you going to deal with the fact that the fastest human reaction time for human movements that are even halfway equivalent to the goat's movements is 100 milliseconds?

You're not being honest with yourself or with us. Sturdivan specified that it took about 1 second from the time of the shot to the time that the goat reached decerebrate rigidity. The decerebrate rigidity being the terminus of the decerebrate reaction.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 05, 2020, 01:58:52 PM
In his book Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, investigative journalist and Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt discussed the neuromuscular-reaction theory and, as so many other scholars have done, observed that the reaction of the goat in the goat films does not resemble JFK’s reaction to the head shot. He also noted that the HSCA seemed divided and uncertain about the neurospasm theory:

Quote
By 1975, when a copy of the Zapruder film was shown on national television, the violent rearward head-snap at last had to be given some official explanation. The HSCA addressed the question and heard expert testimony that the motion of Kennedy's body could have been a neurological spasm. According to the Select Committee report, the expert concluded that "nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear." A motion picture was shown of a goat being shot in the head, causing all the goat's muscles to go into a violent, involuntary spasm. Clearly, this does not appear to be what happened to Kennedy, whose whole body appears to go limp as he is thrown backward. There is no splaying of his limbs, as in the shooting of the goat.

The HSCA also turned to its medical panel for an explanation, but the answer there was far from satisfactory. The doctors even suggested the fallacy of the goat experiments, stating, "It would be reasonable to expect that all [the President's] muscles would be similarly stimulated." It is obvious to any viewer that the President's muscles were not in any state of spasmodic stimulation.

In the end, the HSCA could not offer any sure explanation for the violent backward head-snap. The committee's report stated that "the rearward movement of the President's head would not be fundamentally inconsistent with a bullet striking from the rear.”

A weaker statement of explanation is hard to imagine. (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 129-130)

The HSCA’s forensic pathology panel (FPP), in very guarded language, acknowledged (1) that the Sherrington neuromuscular reaction that Sturdivan advanced and supported with the goat films usually did not occur until several minutes after brain damage/bullet impact, and (2) that the interval between bullet impact and Kennedy’s reaction was a fraction of a second. The panel offered the jet-effect theory as the first explanation for JFK’s backward movement, but gave the neuromuscular-reaction theory as an alternative explanation, and then, to cover all bases, said the backward movement could have been caused by a mix of the two:

Quote
(456) The panel is aware of the time interval between the backward motion of the President's head and the earlier, slight forward motion, possibly caused by the initial missile impact and transfer of energy to the head, as recorded in frames 313-314 of the Zapruder film. The panel further recognizes the possibility of the body stiffening, with an upward and backward lunge, which might have resulted from a massive downward rush of neurologic stimuli to all efferent nerves (those which stimulate muscles). The disparity in mass and strength between those muscles supporting the body on the back (dorsal surface) of the spine and those muscles on the front (ventral) surface could account, at least partially, for this type of motion, although it would be reasonable to expect that all muscles would be similarly stimulated.

(457) The panel suggests that the lacerations of a specific portion of the brain--the cerebral peduncles as described in the autopsy report (89)--could be a cause of decerebrate rigidity, which could contribute to the President's backward motion. Such decerebrate rigidity as Sherrington (90) described usually does not commence for several minutes after separation of the upper brain centers from the brain stem and spinal cord. It is, however, most intense in those muscles which normally counteract the effects of gravity.

(458) The panel is also aware of possible effects on motion that could be caused by the moving car within which the President sat.

(459) The panel concludes that the backward movement of the head following its forward movement occurred after the missile had already exited from the body and had created a large exit defect in the skull, and that it was most probably due to a reverse jet effect, or a neuromuscular reaction, or a combination of the two. The short interval between the two motions supports this explanation. (7 HSCA 173-174)

The FPP simply ducked the problem of the injury to JFK’s spinal cord 5 seconds before the head was struck by a bullet. This would have made it impossible for Sturdivan’s neurospasm to occur, as Dr. Thomas notes:

Quote
Would not the destruction of the brain result in a convulsive muscular spasm as it did in the test-shot goat? The obvious answer lies in the fact that the President’s spinal cord had been traumatized 5 seconds before the head shot. Without a functional spinal cord, the spasmodic muscular convulsions seen in head-traumatized victims cannot be induced. Sturdivan acknowledged in testimony that if the President’s spinal cord had been severed by the earlier shot to the base of the neck, then the neuromuscular reaction that he had postulated could not have happened. (Hear No Evil, pp. 334-335)

Sturdivan used a false choice to avoid the problem. He said if the spinal cord had been severed, then there could have been no neurospasm, and then he said that the cord could not have been severed because Kennedy grasped at his throat.

But it is not a choice between an undamaged spinal cord and a severed spinal cord. If a spinal cord experiences substantial trauma, neurospasms cannot be induced, as Dr. Thomas points out, and the FPP acknowledged that the spinal cord was damaged by the bullet that hit the back. The FPP said the T-1 transverse process was fractured, and that this damage is indicated in the autopsy x-rays:

Quote
. . . the X-rays indicate that the missile track proceeds toward the midline of the body. This analysis is based on the fracture of the transverse process of T-1. . . . (7 HSCA 93)

(440) The panel agrees that the tissue disruption due to the temporary cavity created by passage of a high or intermediate velocity missile might have produced fractures of the transverse processes of one or several of the lower cervical and/or upper thoracic vertebrae in President Kennedy's neck, as indicated by the postmortem X-rays. There are significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae which would receive tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile. A direct grazing missile impact may have occurred, but it would not have been necessary to cause the damage visible in the X-rays. (7 HSCA 171)

Notice the point that there are “significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae” that would receive “tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile,” and that the damage visible in the x-rays—the fracture of the T-1 transverse process--might not have even been caused by a direct grazing missile. The FPP did not venture to explain how a neurospasm could have occurred after the spine received such damage, and Sturdivan ducked the issue by his severed-spine-vs.-intact-spine false choice.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 05, 2020, 08:20:36 PM

It should first be noted that William Hoffman was a Physics Graduate student in the 1960’s. Perfectly competent to make estimates of movement from the Zapruder film. Making accurate estimates is just what a Physics Graduate student is supposed to be good at, and would have a lot of experience at this. He was hired by Josiah Thompson for this work because he had the skills, to make the measurements that he hoped would prove a frontal shooter, and publish this data in his upcoming book “Six Seconds in Dallas”. And Mr. Hoffman would almost certainly have been unaware of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis so he would not have been consciously or unconsciously adjusting his measurements to match it. It would impossible to find such an expert today that one was confident that he had not heard of this hypothesis and did not already have an opinion, one way or the other.

On the question of whether the neuromuscular spasm occurred, or not, my layman opinion is:

The Zapruder film shows it did. There is no other explanation for what it shows:

1.The Head moves forward from z312-z313.
          Consistent with a bullet strike from behind. This can clearly be seen in the Zapruder film.
          It is impossible to tell if the head moved with constant momentum, because this movement
          does not last over one frame interval, but there is no reason to assume it didn’t, all followed
          the laws of conservation of momentum.
                    Not only is this what my layman eye shows me, but is what the careful measurements of
                    Physics graduate student William Hoffman show.

2. The Head starts moving back in the z313-z314.
          This shows the backwards movement started 40 to 80 milliseconds after the bullet impact. Consistent with the 1948 U. S. Army film of the goat, which Larry Sturdivant testified started moving after 40 milliseconds.
                    The careful measurements of Physics graduate student William Hoffman show the head started moving backwards one frame later.

3. The Head moves backwards from z313-z315, with ever increasing speed.
          This is not consistent with movement caused by a “push” from a bullet from the front,
          which should deposit all its momentum while within the head, within a one to two milliseconds,
          after which the head should move with constant momentum, not continuously pick up speed.
                    Not only is this what my layman eye shows me, but is what the careful measurements of
                    Physics graduate student William Hoffman show.

4. From z315-z318, President Kennedy’s right arm starts to move up.
          During this interval it moved up 6 inches at the elbow. It moved up 3 inches from z315-316. This movement
          Is consistent with a sudden speed upward of 3 mph was imparted to the right arm, and then was solely
          Under the influence of gravity, which should cause it to reach its apex during z318-z319, then fall down.
          This is exactly what the Zapruder film shows me. The Head moving back early, followed by the right arm,
          Is exactly what one would expect if the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis is true. The view of his left arm is
          blocked, so we cannot tell if it moved upwards as well, or was perhaps held down by Mrs. Kennedy, assisted
          by the weaker pair of muscles in President Kennedy which would try to pull the arm down.
                    William Hoffman did not comment on this movement, but it is clear for anyone to see in the
                    Zapruder film.

Clearly, if one is guided by what one sees in the Zapruder film, the muscles of the President were activated as a result of being shot in the head and are totally consistent with the Zapruder film, and not consistent with “simply physics” and “pushes” from bullets, unless there were a stream of bullets striking him in the head, one bullet per frame during z313-z318, plus another bullet from below striking the right elbow.

The FPP simply ducked the problem of the injury to JFK’s spinal cord 5 seconds before the head was struck by a bullet. This would have made it impossible for Sturdivan’s neurospasm to occur, as Dr. Thomas notes:

No one knows is that injury would prevent the neuromuscular spasm. My layman’s eye shows the elbows held very high immediately after z222, but gradually coming down by z312, showing the effects of this bullet was fading away within a few seconds, as sometimes happens after trauma to the spinal cord. Temporary paralysis is common in American football, which goes away in a minute or two, or longer.

Sturdivant used a false choice to avoid the problem. He said if the spinal cord had been severed, then there could have been no neurospasm, and then he said that the cord could not have been severed because Kennedy grasped at his throat.

The spinal cord was not severed. Tiny chips were dislodged from near the end of a thin fin of bone of one vertebra, but not severed. I don’t think Mr. Sturdivant claimed the President grasped at his throat. I’m sure he would go with Dr. Lattimer’s opinion, that President Kennedy was in the Thorburn position, immediately after the shot at z222. In my layman’s eye, this position was going away by z312, as trauma caused to the spinal cord can be temporary in some cases.


But it is not a choice between an undamaged spinal cord and a severed spinal cord. If a spinal cord experiences substantial trauma, neurospasms cannot be induced, as Dr. Thomas points out, and the FPP acknowledged that the spinal cord was damaged by the bullet that hit the back. The FPP said the T-1 transverse process was fractured, and that this damage is indicated in the autopsy x-rays:

Notice the point that there are “significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae” that would receive “tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile,” and that the damage visible in the x-rays—the fracture of the T-1 transverse process--might not have even been caused by a direct grazing missile. The FPP did not venture to explain how a neurospasm could have occurred after the spine received such damage, and Sturdivant ducked the issue by his severed-spine-vs.-intact-spine false choice.

There is no way Dr. Thomas or anyone else can know this. It is impossible to say how much the spinal cord was damaged. It would be impossible to wound an animal, with the same amount of damage the President had at z222, because no one knows how much damage was caused, then see if the neuromuscular spasm occurs five seconds later with a shot through the brain. Dr Thomas is simply making unwarranted assumptions.

Dr. Lattimer had superior training, and superior experience treating wounded soldiers, then either Dr. Zacharko or Dr. Thomas, on dealing with the question of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 05, 2020, 09:14:17 PM

No one knows is that injury would prevent the neuromuscular spasm. My layman’s eye shows the elbows held very high immediately after z222, but gradually coming down by z312, showing the effects of this bullet was fading away within a few seconds, as sometimes happens after trauma to the spinal cord. Temporary paralysis is common in American football, which goes away in a minute or two, or longer.

The spinal cord was not severed. Tiny chips were dislodged from near the end of a thin fin of bone of one vertebra, but not severed. I don’t think Mr. Sturdivant claimed the President grasped at his throat. I’m sure he would go with Dr. Lattimer’s opinion, that President Kennedy was in the Thorburn position, immediately after the shot at z222. In my layman’s eye, this position was going away by z312, as trauma caused to the spinal cord can be temporary in some cases.

 Thumb1:  The arms do appear to be dropping.

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 05, 2020, 09:42:31 PM

Thumb1:  The arms do appear to be dropping.

Yes. Comparing frames, z235, z255 and z275:

z235 below:
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg)
z255 below:
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg)
z275 below:
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z275.jpg)

It seems he was in the full ‘Thorburn’ position in z235 but this position started to fade so after. No indication to my layman’s eyes that the President was permanently paralyzed at this point. So, the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis for z312-z318 cannot be eliminated because of the earlier wounding.

Of course, Dr. Thomas won’t go with the clear evidence of the Zapruder film but with the harder to interpret X-Rays. Although, again, to my layman’s eyes, I don’t see why a few bone chips knocked lose form the end of a ‘fin’ of vertebrae, with the damage as minor and as far from the spinal cord as it can be and still be considered damage to a vertebrae, would be a strong indication of paralysis. To my layman’s eyes. I don’t recall Dr. Wecht, who looked at the X-Rays a lot, ever saying so either.

All Zapruder frames can be seen at:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 06, 2020, 03:34:16 AM

“decerebrate rigidity”, nor “decerebrate reaction”, is not the same thing as “neuromuscular reaction”. No where did Dr. Lattimer or Larry Sturdivan say that.

Definition of “decerebrate rigidity” is defined in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing)

Quote
Abnormal posturing is an involuntary flexion or extension of the arms and legs, indicating severe brain injury.

I did not find a definition of “decerebrate reaction”, but I assume this is the reaction of an animal, to severe brain injury, where it starts to assume the “decerebrate rigidity” posture.

“decerebrate rigidity” is not too uncommon in animals and is a well-known and studied phenomenon.

A “neuromuscular reaction” or “neuromuscular spasm” is not as well known because it can only occur, as far as I know, from a rifle bullet passing through the brain of an animal. This has not as extensively studied but the 1948 U. S. Army film shows that it is real.

Quote
You know that's false, or else you can't read. As I've pointed out three or four times now, not all neuromuscular reactions are decerebrate reactions, but Sturdivan identified JFK's alleged neuromuscular reaction as a decerebrate reaction. I've already gone over this ground for you in detail and quoted Sturdivan several times in the process.

Larry Sturdivan said the “neuromuscular reaction”, sometimes called the “neuromuscular spasm”, is observed starting 40 milliseconds after impact. He then says “decerebrate reaction” ends about 1 second after impact.

I’ve been told that the “neuromuscular spasm” is a myth. Now, your telling me that it is not a myth but real, a type of “decerebrate reaction”, one of the fairly common reactions of animals to varies severe brain injuries. You CTers can’t have it both ways.



Here is what Mr. Sturdivan said:

Quote
First, we will observe the neuromuscular reaction, the goat will collapse then, and by the wiggling of his tail and the tenseness of the muscles we will see what I think has sometimes been called the decerebrate rigidity, and that takes place about a second after the shot and then slowly dissipates and you will see the goat slump, obviously dead. The decerebrate reaction and terminus of the decerebrate reaction

By which he means:

1.   First the neuromuscular reaction occurs. He later makes this clear that this started after 40 milliseconds.
2.   Then the “decerebrate reaction” starts to take place.
3.   Then the goat reaches “decerebrate rigidity”, it’s final position it took as a result of the “decerebrate rigidity”, after 1,000-milliseconds.

You are accidently, or more likely on purpose, confusing these 3 stages that occurred over a second of time. The “neuromuscular reaction” is not the same as “decerebrate reaction”

Later he states:

Quote
Now, if you will look up at the forehead of the goat you may see a very small white spot, which was not visible on the last frame. If you can't, don't worry about it. What it is is the bullet entering the head of the goat. And if I can make sure that I have it going forward now. Four one-hundredths of a second after that impact then the neuromuscular reaction that I described begins to happen; the back legs go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome those of the abdomen.

After 40 milliseconds the “neuromuscular reaction” starts. Sometime later, its not important when so Mr. Sturdivan did not specify, the “decerebrate reaction” starts. After 1,000 milliseconds, the “decerebrate reaction” comes to an end and the goat is in “decerebrate rigidity”, its final position.

Only by some willful mis-interpretation does one come to the conclusion that Mr. Sturdivan was describing a single process, a neuromuscular-reaction/decerebrae-reaction/decerebrae-rigidity which came to an end after 1,000 milliseconds. By which, Mr. Sturdivan really meant started after 1,000 milliseconds, not ended.



And you have some sort of parallel argument that because Mr. Sturdivan mentioned that the film was shot at 2,400 frames per second, it allowed him speak of an event that took place over 1,000 milliseconds as taking place over 40 milliseconds. Another bizarre argument that makes no sense.

“About a second” equals about 1,000 milliseconds. There are 1,000 milliseconds in 1 second. So, if the goat began to react “about a second after the shot,” then it began to react about 1,000 milliseconds after the shot. We can reasonably infer that when Sturdivan said "about a second," he meant 800-1100 milliseconds, or perhaps 800-1000 milliseconds, or perhaps 900-1000 milliseconds.

Sturdivan was nice enough to explain that the 24 fps film was a “normal” view and “real time”:

Sturdivan then explained that the second sequence, which is the one that Elliott has been citing, was taken at 2,400 fps, and that in that 2,400-fps film, yes, the goat’s reaction begins about 40 milliseconds, or “four one-hundredths,” after bullet impact:

“Mystery” solved! I say “mystery” because I was frankly a bit baffled by the seemingly impossible speed of the goat’s reaction in the film that Elliott cited. I attributed it to the many differences between goat and human neurobiology and neurophysics (not to mention that the goat’s reaction movements differ markedly from JFK’s). But I also read that goat/sheep/dog/horse and human neuromuscular reaction times are similar—not identical, but similar. Every source I checked said that the fastest human neuromuscular reactions ranged in speed from 100 milliseconds in a few cases to around 200-600 milliseconds in most cases.

One of the most bizarre and incoherent arguments I have ever heard. How does your math work here? If Mr. Sturdivan was describing a 24,000 frame per second film, would that have caused him to claim a 1,000-millisecond event occurred over an interval of 4 milliseconds?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 06, 2020, 09:22:32 AM

Lattimer was a fraud who was repeatedly caught misrepresenting his findings and experiments, misrepresenting his sources, rigging his experiments, making erroneous statements, and in a few cases simply making up stuff out of thin air, e.g., his hoax about the Thorburn position.

Dr. Lattimer was a hero, who treated D-Day casualties in the field. And you, YOU, of all people, have the gall to make this charge against him. Well, that was one of the things the men he treated were fighting for. Freedom of speech.

Dr. Lattimer misrepresenting his findings? How about you misrepresenting his work, as relayed by Mr. Sturdivan in his testimony to the HSCA. Your distortions are so gross and massive, it defies belief that this could be the result of honest reading miscomprehension.

I took a course in college once were the professor explained to me that it was common for people to project their own character onto others. I think you do that a lot. You should have had Dr. Zacharko explain this concept to you.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 06, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
I should include Dr. David Mantik's 1998 critique of the neuromuscular-reaction theory, followed by his 2000 critique. Dr. Mantik earned a PhD in physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University. He then took a tenure-track physics post at the University of Michigan. He went on to earn his MD at the University of Michigan, specializing in radiation oncology. A few years later, he joined the faculty at Loma Linda University Medical School. He now works as a radiation oncologist.

Quote
The other traditional explanation for the head snap has been the "neuromuscular reaction." This was first proposed to the HSCA not by any neuroscience specialist, but by a wound ballistics expert based on his viewing old films of goats being shot in the head. To date no official testimony has been obtained from appropriate specialists (the neuroscientists) on this question. At the very least, interspecies differences in neurophysiology would leave this conclusion open at least to some doubt. In addition, the usual reaction to such brain trauma is not the highly directed movement observed in the Zapruder film but rather random muscular activity. Even Alvarez concluded that the highly directional recoil seen in the Zapruder film required the application of an external force.

Yet another objection to the decerebrate rigidity invoked by the HSCA is the time of onset; even the HSCA admitted that this would develop only after several minutes. I have been unable to find any literature references that even hint that this reaction could occur within milliseconds in human subjects-as is required for the head snap as seen in the film. Furthermore, in a large collaborative study (A.E. Walker, Cerebral Death, 1981, p. 33) with over 500 patients who experienced cerebral death, 70% were limp when observed just before death and an additional 10% became limp at about the time of death. At the very least, therefore, based on all of these considerations, the attempt by the HSCA to implicate a neuromuscular reaction is open to serious doubt. Moreover, the minimum requirement has never been met-the appropriate experts have never been officially consulted.

An additional argument against a neuromuscular reaction is that the observed reaction in the film is much too fast to fit with such a reflex. By the analysis of more than one study, within the space of one Zapruder frame interval (55 msec), the head clearly moves backward. Typical human reflex times are 114 to 112 second (250 to 500 msec). This is an extraordinary discrepancy-a factor of 5 to 10, which, all by itself, makes this scenario quite unlikely. (Assassination Science, p. 281, available at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf)

Writing two years later in Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr. Mantik said the following:

Quote
The other explanation offered by Warren Commission supporters-the neuromuscular reaction-has never received any credible support from appropriate experts in the neurosciences. The many arguments against it are also recounted in Assassination Science (1998, pp. 279-284). Nothing new has emerged to resuscitate this idea. (Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, p. 343)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 07, 2020, 05:18:20 AM
"The motion of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion, but the visible blow-out of tissue and bony fragments in frame 313 and subsequent frames do conclusively indicate the bullet came from behind. The head motion subsequently is interpreted as due to involuntary muscle extension (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=10&tab=page) and not due to the direction of the injury."

--Dr. Fred Hodges (http://www.ajnr.org/content/29/1/e1), Chief of Neuroradiology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, President of the Society of American Neuroradiology, and later Professor of Radiology at Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.

Neuroradiology (https://www.asnr.org/asnr/about-us/) is the clinical sub-specialty concerned with the diagnostic radiology of diseases of the central nervous system, brain, head and neck, through the use of x-ray, MRI, CT and angiography.

====================================================================================

"Immediately after the shot through the head the President took rather abruptly an almost erect position before slumping over to the left. This straightening is to be considered a sudden opisthotonic reflex movement due to decerebration." (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32024#relPageId=9&tab=page)

-- Richard Lindenberg, M.D (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31999),  Director of Neuropathology for the State of Maryland, Clinical Professor in Forensic Pathology and Lecturer in Neuroanatomy at University of Maryland

Neuropathology (https://www.vumc.org/pmi/division-neuropathology) is the study of diseases of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 07, 2020, 06:12:34 AM

"The motion of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion, but the visible blow-out of tissue and bony fragments in frame 313 and subsequent frames do conclusively indicate the bullet came from behind. The head motion subsequently is interpreted as due to involuntary muscle extension (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=10&tab=page) and not due to the direction of the injury."

--Dr. Fred Hodges (http://www.ajnr.org/content/29/1/e1), Chief of Neuroradiology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, President of the Society of American Neuroradiology, and later Professor of Radiology at Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.

Neuroradiology (https://www.asnr.org/asnr/about-us/) is the clinical sub-specialty concerned with the diagnostic radiology of diseases of the central nervous system, brain, head and neck, through the use of x-ray, MRI, CT and angiography.

====================================================================================

"Immediately after the shot through the head the President took rather abruptly an almost erect position before slumping over to the left. This straightening is to be considered a sudden opisthotonic reflex movement due to decerebration." (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32024#relPageId=9&tab=page)

-- Richard Lindenberg, M.D (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31999),  Director of Neuropathology for the State of Maryland, Clinical Professor in Forensic Pathology and Lecturer in Neuroanatomy at University of Maryland

Neuropathology (https://www.vumc.org/pmi/division-neuropathology) is the study of diseases of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves.

Yes, but a Chief of Neuroradiology at John Hopkins won’t rank as high as a Professor of Psychology at Carleton University, in the opinion of Mr. Griffith, I bet. Heck, I doubt Dr. Hodges ranks as high as an entomologist. Dr. Hodges had an opinion that Mr. Griffith disagrees with, and that reason alone thoroughly discredits him.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 07, 2020, 06:43:35 AM
Joe Elliott seems to think that sarcasm and snark make his arguments more compelling.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 07, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
Yes, but a Chief of Neuroradiology at John Hopkins won’t rank as high as a Professor of Psychology at Carleton University, in the opinion of Mr. Griffith, I bet. Heck, I doubt Dr. Hodges ranks as high as an entomologist. Dr. Hodges had an opinion that Mr. Griffith disagrees with, and that reason alone thoroughly discredits him.

When did Hodges and Lindenberg say these things?  They don't provide any supporting analysis or explanation. They just say it was an involuntary muscle extension/reflex movement. I'm guessing they didn't say a word about the problems that neuroscientists, physicists, pathologists, and medical doctors have pointed out with this theory.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 07, 2020, 11:40:26 PM
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Thorburn+position

Sigh. . . .  You, umm, you didn't bother to read any of the links I provided on Lattimer and the Thorburn position, did you?  Did you read any of the other links on Lattimer--how he falsified and/or misrepresented test data, for example?

You're not being honest with yourself or with us. Sturdivan specified that it took about 1 second from the time of the shot to the time that the goat reached decerebrate rigidity. The decerebrate rigidity being the terminus of the decerebrate reaction.

I'm not wasting any more time on this nonsense. I've already quoted several scholarly sources on the synonymous use of "decerebrate rigidity" and "decerebrate response." And I've already gone over Sturdivan's segment on the goat tests and the neurospasm theory three times now, almost line by line. And this is not to mention Dr. Thomas's demolition of Sturdivan's arguments on the subject.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 08, 2020, 04:47:57 PM
It should first be noted that William Hoffman was a Physics Graduate student in the 1960’s. Perfectly competent to make estimates of movement from the Zapruder film. Making accurate estimates is just what a Physics Graduate student is supposed to be good at, and would have a lot of experience at this. He was hired by Josiah Thompson for this work because he had the skills, to make the measurements that he hoped would prove a frontal shooter, and publish this data in his upcoming book “Six Seconds in Dallas”. And Mr. Hoffman would almost certainly have been unaware of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis so he would not have been consciously or unconsciously adjusting his measurements to match it. It would impossible to find such an expert today that one was confident that he had not heard of this hypothesis and did not already have an opinion, one way or the other.

On the question of whether the neuromuscular spasm occurred, or not, my layman opinion is:

The Zapruder film shows it did.

As has been pointed out many times to you, Kennedy's reaction/movement is unlike anything we see in the goat's neurospasm reaction. So how on earth can you claim the Zapruder film "shows" JFK's backward movement was caused by neuromuscular reaction, especially given the fact that science tells us that human neurospasms involving similar movement cannot occur sooner than 100 milliseconds after stimulus?

Just because you want and need the neurospasm theory to be true does not remove the scientific and readily observable objections to the theory.

There is no other explanation for what it shows.

"No other explanation"??? Really? The HSCA FPP gave the jet-effect theory as its first explanation for JFK's movement, followed by the neurospasm theory, and then, to cover all bases, said both phenomena might have been involved. The FPP simply ignored the problem that there is no evidence that a human neurospasm involving the movement of that much weight could occur in 40 milliseconds.

And of course there are other explanations for JFK's movement, but your version of the assassination won't allow you to accept them. If the bullet that struck Connally in the back could push his right shoulder down and forward, a bullet could have caused JFK's head to move backward, as a long list of physicists have observed. Dr. James Riddle, who was a physicist at UCLA:

Quote
The motion of Kennedy’s body in frames 312-313 is totally inconsistent with the impact of a bullet from above and behind. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion consistent with the laws of physics is that the bullet was fired from a position forward and to the right of the President.

In the 1990s, I interviewed several aeronautical engineers about the jet-effect theory. They all thought it was laughable. And, of course, Dr. Chambers has demolished the jet-effect theory. Dr. Chambers has also established that the backward movement is consistent with a shot from the front, and Dr. Mantik, a highly qualified physicist in his own right, agrees that Dr. Chambers has showed this:

Quote
G. Paul Chambers has shown that JFK’s head snap is fully consistent with a frontal shot. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/Omissions_and_Miscalculations_of_Nicholas_Nalli.pdf)

Then, if we factor in the mountain of evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered, we can logically postulate that JFK's head movement was altered to remove visual indications of two bullet strikes--one moving his head forward and the other moving his head backward but to a lesser degree/less dramatically than we now see in the film.

1.The Head moves forward from z312-z313.
          Consistent with a bullet strike from behind. This can clearly be seen in the Zapruder film.
          It is impossible to tell if the head moved with constant momentum, because this movement
          does not last over one frame interval, but there is no reason to assume it didn’t, all followed
          the laws of conservation of momentum.
                    Not only is this what my layman eye shows me, but is what the careful measurements of
                    Physics graduate student William Hoffman show.

2. The Head starts moving back in the z313-z314.
          This shows the backwards movement started 40 to 80 milliseconds after the bullet impact. Consistent with the 1948 U. S. Army film of the goat, which Larry Sturdivant testified started moving after 40 milliseconds.
                    The careful measurements of Physics graduate student William Hoffman show the head started moving backwards one frame later.

3. The Head moves backwards from z313-z315, with ever increasing speed.
          This is not consistent with movement caused by a “push” from a bullet from the front,
          which should deposit all its momentum while within the head, within a one to two milliseconds,
          after which the head should move with constant momentum, not continuously pick up speed.
                    Not only is this what my layman eye shows me, but is what the careful measurements of
                    Physics graduate student William Hoffman show.

4. From z315-z318, President Kennedy’s right arm starts to move up.
          During this interval it moved up 6 inches at the elbow. It moved up 3 inches from z315-316. This movement
          Is consistent with a sudden speed upward of 3 mph was imparted to the right arm, and then was solely
          Under the influence of gravity, which should cause it to reach its apex during z318-z319, then fall down.
          This is exactly what the Zapruder film shows me. The Head moving back early, followed by the right arm,
          Is exactly what one would expect if the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis is true. The view of his left arm is
          blocked, so we cannot tell if it moved upwards as well, or was perhaps held down by Mrs. Kennedy, assisted
          by the weaker pair of muscles in President Kennedy which would try to pull the arm down.
                    William Hoffman did not comment on this movement, but it is clear for anyone to see in the
                    Zapruder film.

Right, so I guess you just don't care that Dr. Art Snyder, a physicist at the Stanford University Linear Accelerator Center, proved to Thompson's satisfaction that Hoffman's measurements were wrong? Does it matter to you that Dr. Snyder rejects the jet-effect theory for JFK's movement (1) based on the laws of physics and (2) based on his own experiments?

Clearly, if one is guided by what one sees in the Zapruder film, the muscles of the President were activated as a result of being shot in the head and are totally consistent with the Zapruder film

Whaaaat?! Again, do you have a copy of the Zapruder film that no one else has seen? What in the world are you talking about? Nothing like what you describe is seen in the Zapruder film that the rest of humanity has seen. In the rest of humanity's copy of the film, JFK's limbs don't splay, and his head moves before his shoulders move. As Henry Hurt noted,

Quote
A motion picture was shown of a goat being shot in the head, causing all the goat's muscles to go into a violent, involuntary spasm.  Clearly, this does not appear to be what happened to Kennedy, whose whole body appears to go limp as he is thrown backward. There is no splaying of his limbs, as in the shooting of the goat. (Reasonable Doubt, p. 130)

How can anyone reason with you when you keep pretending to see things that simply are not there?

, and not consistent with “simply physics” and “pushes” from bullets, unless there were a stream of bullets striking him in the head, one bullet per frame during z313-z318, plus another bullet from below striking the right elbow.

Yeah, uh-huh. Newton just got it wrong, huh? The bullet that struck Connally visibly pushed his right shoulder down, but the bullet that hit Kennedy's head from behind--abracadabra--pulled it backward! I guess you've already forgotten about the fact, which I personally pointed out to you, that Alvarez falsified his test data because the melons he shot kept being propelled in the same direction that the bullets were moving? (Gosh, who would have thunk it?) Remember that? You might also want to read Dr. Chambers' chapter on the backward head movement.

No one knows is that injury would prevent the neuromuscular spasm. My layman’s eye shows the elbows held very high immediately after z222, but gradually coming down by z312, showing the effects of this bullet was fading away within a few seconds, as sometimes happens after trauma to the spinal cord. Temporary paralysis is common in American football, which goes away in a minute or two, or longer.

The spinal cord was not severed. Tiny chips were dislodged from near the end of a thin fin of bone of one vertebra, but not severed. I don’t think Mr. Sturdivant claimed the President grasped at his throat. I’m sure he would go with Dr. Lattimer’s opinion, that President Kennedy was in the Thorburn position, immediately after the shot at z222. In my layman’s eye, this position was going away by z312, as trauma caused to the spinal cord can be temporary in some cases.

There is no way Dr. Thomas or anyone else can know this. It is impossible to say how much the spinal cord was damaged. It would be impossible to wound an animal, with the same amount of damage the President had at z222, because no one knows how much damage was caused, then see if the neuromuscular spasm occurs five seconds later with a shot through the brain. Dr Thomas is simply making unwarranted assumptions.

Oh. Come. On.  You must be kidding.  So the FRACTURE of the spine at T1, which is just below the base of the neck, would not have at least substantially hindered, if not prevented, a neuromuscular reaction involving the head and shoulders 5 seconds later???  Really??? Let's read the HSCA FPP's description of the damage again:

Quote
. . . the X-rays indicate that the missile track proceeds toward the midline of the body. This analysis is based on the fracture of the transverse process of T-1. . . . (7 HSCA 93)

(440) The panel agrees that the tissue disruption due to the temporary cavity created by passage of a high or intermediate velocity missile might have produced fractures of the transverse processes of one or several of the lower cervical and/or upper thoracic vertebrae in President Kennedy's neck, as indicated by the postmortem X-rays. There are significant muscle masses attached to the vertebrae which would receive tremendous shock, even if several inches distant from such a missile. A direct grazing missile impact may have occurred, but it would not have been necessary to cause the damage visible in the X-rays. (7 HSCA 171)

IOW, the shock received from the shock wave caused by the bullet's impact and penetration could have fractured T1 even if it didn't hit, and the "significant muscles" attached to the vertebrae in that region received a "tremendous shock" even if several inches from the missile itself.

And you're telling me with a straight fact that the spinal cord suffered little or no damage from all this?

Dr. Thomas is not making any "unwarranted assumptions." He is basing his observation on the damage to the spine that the HSCA FPP identified and described and on the medical scientific fact that neuromuscular reactions require a functioning spinal cord. A spinal cord in a spine that has just suffered a FRACTURE at T1, as well as the other damage to the area described by the FPP, is not going to be capable of producing a violent neurospasm that throws the head and shoulders backward, especially not in the impossible timeframe of 40 milliseconds after bullet impact.

We both know that the real problem is that your theory of the assassination requires you to peddle these “bizarre and implausible” theories, as Dr. Chambers has called them.

Dr. Lattimer had superior training, and superior experience treating wounded soldiers, then either Dr. Zacharko or Dr. Thomas, on dealing with the question of the neuromuscular spasm hypothesis.

LOL! You’re citing Lattimer as your authority on this?! Oh. My. Goodness. Yeah, okay. Whatever you say. This is clown material.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 09, 2020, 01:21:10 AM

As has been pointed out many times to you, Kennedy's reaction/movement is unlike anything we see in the goat's neurospasm reaction.

Not exactly like the goat film. The goat is, after all, a quadruped. Standing in a regular quadruped posture. With its head locked into place.

But in other ways, similar. Both body movements are consistent with the hypothesis that a spurious message to contract was sent down the spinal cord to all the muscles, with the stronger muscles winning out.

Hence, for the goat, the forelegs kicked forward and out. The hindlimbs kicked straight back. And the back arched. The head failed to go up and back, but it was locked into place. And this movement started 40 milliseconds after impact.

For the President, the head went back, the torso went back, the right arm, and maybe the left, went up. And this movement started after roughly 55 milliseconds, somewhere in the 40 to 80 millisecond range. Hard to tell because the Zapruder film was not shot at 2,400 frames per second.

All and all, strikingly similar.



So how on earth can you claim the Zapruder film "shows" JFK's backward movement was caused by neuromuscular reaction, especially given the fact that science tells us that human neurospasms involving similar movement cannot occur sooner than 100 milliseconds after stimulus?

There has never been an experiment that timed the “neuromuscular spasm” in a human. So, it has never been timed as taking 100 milliseconds. A neuromuscular spasm can only happen, as far as I know, by a bullet through the brain. With a goat, which has been filmed, the motion started 40 milliseconds after impact. I have never heard that nerve impulses travel much faster through goats than humans. I am pretty sure the speeds would be similar, since both are mammals.

Question:

Can you site an experiment with a human being where a “neuromuscular spasm” was induced by a rifle bullet and was found to start after 100 milliseconds?

Where was this experiment conducted? What year? Who were the observers?


I don’t think you can, because you just made up the 100 milliseconds. So, I expect you to dodge this question. Or to cite experiments that did not involve rifle bullets.

Again, I’m not interested in the timing of reactions that are not caused by a rifle bullet traveling through the brain. How fast a human reacts to vision, to hearing, from touch, none of these matters. Only reactions caused by a bullet through the brain. All answers have to be based on real world experiments of this nature, either with a human or an animal. Armchair opinions on this matter are worthless, no matter how many degrees this armchair theorist holds.



"No other explanation"??? Really? The HSCA FPP gave the jet-effect theory as its first explanation for JFK's movement, followed by the neurospasm theory, and then, to cover all bases, said both phenomena might have been involved. The FPP simply ignored the problem that there is no evidence that a human neurospasm involving the movement of that much weight could occur in 40 milliseconds.

Neither the “Jet Effect” nor the “Frontal Bullet” hypothesis work because of the quarter second acceleration of JFK’s head from z313-z318.


As one can see studying the Zapruder films, frame by frame.

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/)

The President’s head starts moving backwards after z313, through z314, through z315, but its initially moving so slowly, it does reach the z312 position until z316.


As one can also see in William Hoffman’s data when he carefully analyzed the film back in 1966. The head starts backwards at a slow speed, around 0.5 mph, and gradually builds up to 1.9 mph by z-318.

https://archive.org/details/SixSecondsInDallas/page/n103/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/SixSecondsInDallas/page/n103/mode/2up)

https://archive.org/details/SixSecondsInDallas/page/n290/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/SixSecondsInDallas/page/n290/mode/2up)



And of course there are other explanations for JFK's movement, but your version of the assassination won't allow you to accept them. If the bullet that struck Connally in the back could push his right shoulder down and forward, a bullet could have caused JFK's head to move backward, as a long list of physicists have observed. Dr. James Riddle, who was a physicist at UCLA:

A bullet from the front will deposit momentum to the head. But it will only do so while it is in the head. Once it leaves the head, no more momentum is added to the head. The bullet will travel through the head for only 1 to 2 milliseconds. So, the period of acceleration is only 1 to 2 milliseconds, not 250 milliseconds. Which rules out the “Frontal Bullet Push” hypothesis.

And for similar reasons, rules out the “Jet Effect”.

And the acceleration of the car, which did take place, is about one-tenth of the acceleration of the head, so this cannot be the explanation either.

A frontal bullet pushing the President’s head backwards? I have no problem with. A frontal bullet pushing the President’s head backwards, and keeping adding more and more speed to the head over a quarter of a second? That I have a problem with.



In the 1990s, I interviewed several aeronautical engineers about the jet-effect theory. They all thought it was laughable. And, of course, Dr. Chambers has demolished the jet-effect theory.

Really? Laughable? Even after seeing the videos of taped melons being blasted backwards, back toward the direction the bullet came from? I wouldn’t want to fly in any planes designed by these “laughing” engineers. I wonder if any of them were involved with the Boeing 737 Max.

Question:
If the Jet Effect Theory is false, if it can never happen, how do you explain taped melons heading back toward the direction of the rifle that shot it?

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 09, 2020, 03:02:20 AM
First, regarding John Lattimer, I wholly concur with what Milicent Cranor said about him recently in her critique of Nicholas Nalli's attempt to resurrect the jet-effect theory:

Quote
On 13 separate instances, Nalli refers to the work of the late John K. Lattimer, MD, who spent decades using fraudulent means to prove the conclusions of the Warren Commission. His demonstrations of the jet effect and the single bullet theory were so amateurish they would have been scorned as junior high school science projects. . . .

Before getting into Lattimer’s own jet effect, you may wish to see something more immediately comprehensible. The scam revealed below was designed to solve the big problem concerning the location of Kennedy’s back wound: according to clear photographic evidence, it was too low to comport with the single-bullet theory. A bullet from the sixth floor of the Depository Building (the “sniper’s nest”) would not have been able to enter that low, then go up to exit Kennedy’s throat, which was at a higher level. And if it did not exit the throat, this would have to mean the throat wound was caused by a bullet coming from the front. So Lattimer created a model of a skeleton showing the bullet entering several inches higher than it actually did. . . . [even several inches higher than it appears in the autopsy photo of the back]

Lattimer said the largest bone fragment “exploded upward and forward due to the power of this destructive bullet and was forced 40 feet in the air by the explosion of the brain.”

Fact: That large fragment, along with two smaller ones, was found in the back of Kennedy’s limousine. Its journey was only in inches, not feet. You can see it on Kennedy’s right shoulder in the famous Moorman Polaroid photo. And, in several frames of the Zapruder film, you can watch as it makes its way down Kennedy’s back. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, famous for leaping upon the limousine to protect Mrs. Kennedy, saw a large fragment detach from Kennedy’s head. . . .

Lattimer said that in all experiments, his and those performed by the Army for the Warren Commission, there was a “complete separation” of the copper shell and the lead core, which is what he claims happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the head. 

Fact: The bullet alleged to have hit JFK in the head broke into two fragments — and both were jacketed. (https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/05/31/scientist-neutralizes-jfks-back-and-to-the-left-or-does-he/)

Second, and to my main point, I am undecided about the degree, if any, of forward movement of JFK's head in Z312-313. I know that Josiah Thompson really wanted to believe that the head moves forward by 2.3 inches in 40 milliseconds in Z312-313, because he correctly viewed the movement as potential evidence of two nearly simultaneous head shots, one from the rear followed a split-second later by one from the front. But Dr. Snyder eventually convinced Thompson that this does not occur. On the other hand, Dr. Chambers believes the head does move forward in Z312-313.

Personally, I would love to see convincing evidence that the forward head movement is real and that its speed is at least close to the speed measured by Hoffman (2.3 inches/40 milliseconds). Such a movement would make the already silly neurospasm and jet-effect theories even more ludicrous, and would also constitute strong evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

In any event, we know that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head was not the kind of bullet that Oswald allegedly used. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm ammo, but the rear head entry wound was only 6.0 mm wide. The WC tried to explain away the physical impossibility of a bullet creating an entry wound smaller than its own diameter by claiming that the smaller entrance wound resulted from the “elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it"! One can only wonder why this amazing "elastic recoil" of skull bone did not occur in the WC's own ballistics tests conducted by Dr. Alfred Olivier.











Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 09, 2020, 03:26:04 AM
First, regarding John Lattimer, I wholly concur with what Milicent Cranor said about him recently in her critique of Nicholas Nalli's attempt to resurrect the jet-effect theory:

Second, and to my main point, I am undecided about the degree, if any, of forward movement of JFK's head in Z312-313. I know that Josiah Thompson really wanted to believe that the head moves forward by 2.3 inches in 40 milliseconds in Z312-313, because he correctly viewed the movement as potential evidence of two nearly simultaneous head shots, one from the rear followed a split-second later by one from the front. But Dr. Snyder eventually convinced Thompson that this does not occur. On the other hand, Dr. Chambers believes the head does move forward in Z312-313.

Personally, I would love to see convincing evidence that the forward head movement is real and that its speed is at least close to the speed measured by Hoffman (2.3 inches/40 milliseconds). Such a movement would make the already silly neurospasm and jet-effect theories even more ludicrous, and would also constitute strong evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

In any event, we know that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head was not the kind of bullet that Oswald allegedly used. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm ammo, but the rear head entry wound was only 6.0 mm wide. The WC tried to explain away the physical impossibility of a bullet creating an entry wound smaller than its own diameter by claiming that the smaller entrance wound resulted from the “elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it"! One can only wonder why this amazing "elastic recoil" of skull bone did not occur in the WC's own ballistics tests conducted by Dr. Alfred Olivier.

Milicent Cranor is bitter hag. And a screwball.

The forward movement of the head is an established and irrefutable fact.

The 6 mm wide dimension was of the wound in the scalp, not the skull. That wound was a laceration. A tear. No dimensions were given for the entry wound in the skull.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 09, 2020, 03:52:14 AM
Question:
If the Jet Effect Theory is false, if it can never happen, how do you explain taped melons heading back toward the direction of the rifle that shot it?


Griffith seems to be able to dig up any number of "experts" to support any and every argument but unfortunately they mostly seem to be wrong.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hP9CMpQ1/coconut-jet-effect.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/y63p3VV5/bottle-jet-effect.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/TY87rZ1P/melon-jet-effect.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 09, 2020, 03:55:15 AM
Griffith seems to be able to dig up any number of "experts" to support any and every argument but unfortunately they mostly seem to be wrong.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hP9CMpQ1/coconut-jet-effect.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/y63p3VV5/bottle-jet-effect.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/TY87rZ1P/melon-jet-effect.gif)

JohnM

Those GIFs are fake.  ;D
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 09, 2020, 04:59:35 AM

Griffith seems to be able to dig up any number of "experts" to support any and every argument but unfortunately they mostly seem to be wrong.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hP9CMpQ1/coconut-jet-effect.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/y63p3VV5/bottle-jet-effect.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/TY87rZ1P/melon-jet-effect.gif)

JohnM

This is a good point. Mr. Griffith has top experts who, always using armchair reasoning, not based on appropriate real-world tests, who assure us:

1.   The Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis is impossible.

2.   The Jet Effect is impossible.


Well, to be honest, the Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis cannot be tested with humans. That fact that it does happen with goats implies it likely occurs with humans.

But the Jet Effect Theory is a quite different story. There are no moral impediments to shooting taped melons and all sorts of other objects. And so, there is a lot of film evidence that this is a real phenomenon.

But, nevertheless, just as assuredly as the neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis is false, equally so is the Jet Effect Theory. It is a myth. It is against the laws of Physics that an object can be propelled back in the opposite direction the bullet was travelling. Physics Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez simply did not know what he was talking about. Only Mr. Griffith and his armchair experts with their lofty degrees understand the physics of it and it is quite impossible.

Yeah, right.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 09, 2020, 12:09:16 PM
Real life isn't Hollywood, these soldiers are all shot in the head with fmj bullets and no one is violently thrown forward, they just fall down and move back towards the shooters.

(https://i.postimg.cc/59rxV5gz/Menshotinheadfallback1-zpsd2fc7371.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 09, 2020, 12:41:24 PM
Milicent Cranor is bitter hag. And a screwball.

Lattimer was the screwball, not Cranor.

I notice you did not address any of the egregious errors that Cranor documented in Lattimer's writings (and there are plenty more where those came from).

Here is Lattimer's SBT model, which shows the back wound above the throat wound, far above where even the autopsy photo shows it:

(http://miketgriffith.com/files/lattimersbtmodel.jpg)

Now compare Lattimer's model with the autopsy photo of the back:

(http://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkautopsyphotoback.jpg)

Are you kidding me? This is the kind of shoddy, bogus work that your "expert" routinely produced. Can you find me an equally erroneous, misleading model/diagram done by Cranor? If Cranor even once put out such bogus material, I would hesitate to use any of her research. But I'm willing to bet that you guys will keep using Lattimer's material even though you can see with your own eyes how bogus his SBT model was.

The forward movement of the head is an established and irrefutable fact.

Really? Is it an established and irrefutable fact that the head moves forward 2.3 inches? You might want to talk to Dr. Snyder about that. As I said, I hope you're right, but I also know that Snyder's research was so compelling that it convinced Thompson that no such movement occurs.

The 6 mm wide dimension was of the wound in the scalp, not the skull. That wound was a laceration. A tear. No dimensions were given for the entry wound in the skull.

Wrong. Have you never read the autopsy report? Humes said the wound he measured in the scalp corresponded to the underlying wound in the skull:

Quote
Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspects of the skull. (CE 387, p. 4)

The wound in the skull was the same size as the wound in the scalp, and vice versa, hence the term "corresponding wound."

As for John Mytton's videos that supposedly show the possibility of the jet effect, did you not notice that none of the target objects in the videos has the same weight as a human head and that they are not attached to anything resembling a neck and spinal cord? Did you notice that?

Are you aware that when Alvarez did his experiments, he at least tried to make his target objects somewhat realistic and relevant by using melons wrapped in strapping tape? And, gee, guess what happened? Virtually all the melons moved away from him, i.e., they moved in the same direction as the bullet was traveling.

Look, if you guys want to get on public boards and defend such specious theories as the jet-effect theory as an explanation for Kennedy's head movement, you need to deal with the scientific refutations of the theory that scientists have already written and that are readily available. You could start with Dr. Chambers' debunking of the theory in his book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (chapter 9). Or, you could start with Dr. David Mantik's critique of Nicholas Nalli's attempt to resurrect the jet-effect theory--Dr. Mantik's response is available online:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/Omissions_and_Miscalculations_of_Nicholas_Nalli.pdf

Another online study on the absurdity of the jet-effect theory as an explanation for Kennedy's head movement is mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti's article "A Critical Look at Luis Alvarez’s Jet Effect Explanation for the Head Movement of John Kennedy":

http://jfklancer.com/pdf/Jet_Effect_Rebuttal_II_(4-17-2012).pdf

And let us be clear: No one is saying that the phenomenon of the jet effect does not exist. It does, but only in very specific circumstances. The JFK assassination was not one of those circumstances. There is no way on this planet that a jet effect caused Kennedy's backward head movement, as many physicists have explained.

You guys tend to simply ignore research that refutes your theories, no matter how scholarly the research is and no matter how qualified the authors of the research are. Will anybody on your side ever deal with the evidence and research presented by Mantik, Snyder, Chambers, Hoch, Aguilar, Cunningham, Thomas, Chesser, Riley, etc., etc.?  Summarily dismissing research you don't like is not dealing with it; it is avoiding it.

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 09, 2020, 04:09:48 PM
Lattimer was the screwball, not Cranor.

I notice you did not address any of the egregious errors that Cranor documented in Lattimer's writings (and there are plenty more where those came from).

Here is Lattimer's SBT model, which shows the back wound above the throat wound, far above where even the autopsy photo shows it:

(http://miketgriffith.com/files/lattimersbtmodel.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/neck-transit-lateral-02.jpg)

Lattimer's missile track just needs to be lowered a small amount. And the skeleton model ought to be tilted a bit towards the front. You too lazy to do that?

Quote
Now compare Lattimer's model with the autopsy photo of the back:

(http://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkautopsyphotoback.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/r4zdsvF/neck-transit-in-autopsy-photo-of-back.jpg)

The autopsy photo shows an entry wound on the base of the back of the neck (how it is described in the autopsy report) at the C7 level and exit wound at the T1 level. The 14cm measurements ("B") are in the autopsy report and the 2 1/8" measurement ("A") is in the Clark Panel Review. The President's shoulders are elevated due to postmortem rigidity

The autopsy photo would be the same as Lattimer's model after a honest and diligent person made a few minor common-sense corrections.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2020, 05:58:28 PM
"common sense corrections".  LOL.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 09, 2020, 08:00:40 PM
Lattimer's missile track just needs to be lowered a small amount. And the skeleton model ought to be tilted a bit towards the front. You too lazy to do that?

Uh, I'm not in the habit of messing with other people's models. They are what they are. Lattimer knew better, but he lied about it anyway. And your answer is to blame me for not adjusting Lattimer's model! That's rich.

The autopsy photo shows an entry wound on the base of the back of the neck (how it is described in the autopsy report) at the C7 level and exit wound at the T1 level. The 14cm measurements ("B") are in the autopsy report and the 2 1/8" measurement ("A") is in the Clark Panel Review. The President's shoulders are elevated due to postmortem rigidity

The autopsy photo would be the same as Lattimer's model after a honest and diligent person made a few minor common-sense corrections.

Oh my goodness, I almost forgot that some of you guys are still peddling the single-bullet theory!  Did you miss the disclosures in the 1990s from which we learn from numerous sources that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point, that the doctors removed the chest organs and rolled the body over to see where the probe was going, that they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining, and that the bullet track went downward rather sharply?

Any honest and intelligent person would factor in this evidence and would also refer to the hard physical evidence of the holes in JFK's shirt and coat. JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat. Any honest an intelligence person would also look at the autopsy face sheet and the death certificate, both of which put the wound below T1, at around T3--and the face sheet was marked "verified" (the WC removed the "verified" notation when they published the sheet).


 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 09, 2020, 09:46:18 PM
Uh, I'm not in the habit of messing with other people's models. They are what they are. Lattimer knew better, but he lied about it anyway. And your answer is to blame me for not adjusting Lattimer's model! That's rich.

Too lazy or just plain stupid to make a minor effort to consolidate what's in front of you.

Quote
Oh my goodness, I almost forgot that some of you guys are still peddling the single-bullet theory!  Did you miss the disclosures in the 1990s from which we learn from numerous sources that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point, that the doctors removed the chest organs and rolled the body over to see where the probe was going, that they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining, and that the bullet track went downward rather sharply?

Any honest and intelligent person would factor in this evidence and would also refer to the hard physical evidence of the holes in JFK's shirt and coat. JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat.

You call LNers stuck in the past. And you bring up the decades-old nonsense about Kennedy's tailor-made clothing having some magical quality that prevented bunching.

The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky.

Quote
Any honest an intelligence person would also look at the autopsy face sheet and the death certificate, both of which put the wound below T1, at around T3--and the face sheet was marked "verified" (the WC removed the "verified" notation when they published the sheet).

The face sheet says the wound has the 14cm measurements. That's plotted on my 3D graphic and it works out to the C7 level. The face sheet was prepared by Boswell would stated in 1966 that the markings were not to be considered accurate, but the measurements were.

(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sun.gif)

"Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale?" ( Link (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/toscale.htm) )
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 09, 2020, 10:35:08 PM
Too lazy or just plain stupid to make a minor effort to consolidate what's in front of you.

If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner, I have no desire for further discussion with you.

You call LNers stuck in the past. And you bring up the decades-old nonsense about Kennedy's tailor-made clothing having some magical quality that prevented bunching.

Well, umm, tailor-made shirts are designed to fit the person well. Another "magical quality" that would have prevented Kennedy's shirt from bunching significantly would have been that the lower part of his back was pinning the shirt against the seat. Plus, photos and film of JFK 2-15 seconds before the first shot show that his coat was only slightly bunched.

The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky.

I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly? This has been known for decades. Both holes put the wound about 5 inches below the collar line.

The face sheet says the wound has the 14cm measurements. That's plotted on my 3D graphic and it works out to the C7 level. The face sheet was prepared by Boswell would stated in 1966 that the markings were not to be considered accurate, but the measurements were.

"Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale?" ( Link (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/toscale.htm) )

If the autopsy sheet is marked "verified," one logically assumes that it has been, well, "verified." And isn't it just a whopping coincidence that the death certificate, which was also marked "verified," puts the back wound at T3? So Boswell and Burkley couldn't tell the difference between C7/T1 and T3? Really?

Dr. Ebersole thought the wound was closer to T4. Was he blind too?

Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the back wound was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Another blind man?

Sibert and O'Neill both put the back wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, as did the FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy. The ARRB released the diagrams that Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill drew of the back wound for the HSCA. I trust you know what those diagrams show, right? They put the wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, just as does the face sheet and the death certificate and Dr. Ebersole and Clint Hill. What a coincidence, hey?

I hope you can regain your civility, or I won't be responding to you again.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 09, 2020, 11:23:09 PM

I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly? This has been known for decades. Both holes put the wound about 5 inches below the collar line.


Did any of your researchers from the dark ages allow for the fact that Kennedy's jacket on Elm street shows bunching that extends upwards to the top of the jacket's collar? Oops!

(https://i.postimg.cc/L5Wcj3X1/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/8cFp85fL/Lowe-JFK-photo-shirt-bunch.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 09, 2020, 11:54:07 PM
Quality graphics once again John  Thumb1:. It should be pointed out that the picture showing the bunched up jacket was taken literally seconds before the shot to JFK's back. How can this argument about the clothes determining the position of the entrance wound still exist?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 10, 2020, 12:01:48 AM
Quality graphics once again John  Thumb1:. It should be pointed out that the picture showing the bunched up jacket was taken literally seconds before the shot to JFK's back. How can this argument about the clothes determining the position of the entrance wound still exist?

Quote
How can this argument about the clothes determining the position of the entrance wound still exist?

Exactly, my only agenda is the truth.

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2020, 12:32:42 AM
Did any of your researchers from the dark ages allow for the fact that Kennedy's jacket on Elm street shows bunching that extends upwards to the top of the jacket's collar? Oops!

All the more reason to be skeptical that the shirt was bunched up an equal amount.  Besides, Croft was taken at Z-160.  Nobody claims that a bullet hit him that early.  Where's the "jacket bunch" in Willis?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 10, 2020, 12:52:30 AM
All the more reason to be skeptical that the shirt was bunched up an equal amount.  Besides, Croft was taken at Z-160.  Nobody claims that a bullet hit him that early.  Where's the "jacket bunch" in Willis?

Not this crap again, from Croft's photo until Kennedy disappears behind the sign his right arm is continually waving and when he emerges from behind the sign the jacket is still bunched and on top of that his upper torso shows no signs of being adjusted to allow the jacket to fall.


JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2020, 01:00:20 AM
Not this crap again, from Croft's photo until Kennedy disappears behind the sign his right arm is continually waving and when he emerges from behind the sign the jacket is still bunched and on top of that his upper torso shows no signs of being adjusted to allow the jacket to fall.

Nice try.  You can't see the alleged "bunch" at all in Zapruder.  "No signs of being adjusted" is a copout.

How about Willis?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/willis-bunched.jpg)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 10, 2020, 01:11:28 AM
"No signs of being adjusted" is a copout.

So after Croft can you point out where Kennedy while constantly waving adjusts his jacket?


From Love Field when Kennedy entered the Limo through to Elm street all the footage/photos I've seen shows a bunched jacket and if you have anything that contradicts this besides a photo of a blob I'd sure like to see it? Thanks in advance!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d0wJQFxZ/kennedy-love-field.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nc2kSGt8/jacket-bunch-from-Love-field-to-Elm-street.gif)

JohnM



Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 10, 2020, 01:30:38 AM
I’ve been saving this, and perhaps now is the time to share it, because it is the best demolition of the neuromuscular-reaction theory I have read; it is also a good refutation of the jet-effect theory (although even better ones have been done by Dr. Chambers, Dr. Mantik, and Dr. Snyder). This is from a rebuttal essay written by Dr. Gary Aguilar (MD) and Dr. Cyril Wecht (MD, LLB) titled “The Science Behind the Persistence of Skepticism in the JFK Case” and published in the Spring 2016 edition of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Journal.

Aguilar and Wecht wrote in response to claims made earlier in the journal by Lucien and Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan. One of the subjects that Aguilar and Wecht discussed was JFK’s backward head movement and the two lone-gunman theories regarding that movement: the neuromuscular-reaction theory and the jet-effect theory. You will notice that Aguilar and Wecht (who is a forensic pathologist) endorse Dr. Donald Thomas’s critique of Sturdivan’s defense of the neurospasms theory. I quote from the section of their essay on JFK’s backward head movement (note: the essay is heavily footnoted, but I’ve removed the footnotes for ease of reading):

Quote
Both Mr. Haag and Mr. Sturdivan argue that either a “jet effect” caused by a shot from behind, or a “neuromuscular reaction,” caused the President’s rearward head motion after Zapruder frame 313. Both scoff that a grassy knoll shot might explain it. Because JFK’s reaction to the fatal shot is perhaps the most important and contentious issue raised by Messrs’ Haag and Mr. Sturdivan, the topic deserves a detailed discussion.

As for what Mr. Haag has called the “Newtonian physics” explanation for Kennedy’s rearward jolt - Luis Alvarez’s so-called “jet effect” - Mr. Haag would have done well to ask his colleague about the Nobel Laurate’s conclusion. “The question is,” Mr. Larry Sturdivan has written, “Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.”

Readers should pay more attention to Dr. Alvarez’s published claims than his credentials. (Just as he had “proved” what the government preferred - that a jet effect from Oswald’s shot had swung JFK backward, Dr. Alvarez also once said that he had “proved” what the U.S. and Israeli government falsely claimed was true: that there had been no South African/Israeli nuclear test in the Indian Ocean – the politically sensitive, so-called “Vela Incident.” Dr. Alvarez’s claim was subsequently shredded by private, government and military investigators.)

Re JFK, in the prestigious American Journal of Physics Dr. Alvarez wrote, ““It is important to stress the fact that a taped melon was our a priori best mock-up of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test … If we had used the ‘Edison Test,’ and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our firing experiments could reasonably be criticized. But as the tests were actually conducted, I believe they show it is most probable that the shot in 313 came from behind the car.”

First, surely AFTE members do not live in a universe in which a soft-shelled melon, even a tape-wrapped one, is the “best mock-up” of a bony human skull, particularly when said melon weighs about half what a human head weighs. Second, it was no less than Warren loyalist John Lattimer, MD who revealed that, apparently unable to get Mr. Haag’s preferred “Newtonian explanation” using jacketed Mannlicher Carcano bullets, Dr. Alvarez instead shot soft-nosed, .30-06 rounds. But not just any old .30-06 rounds, with their ~2800 ft/second muzzle velocity; he “hot-loaded” his cartridges to 3000 ft/sec, and only then got his famous “jet effect.” Worse, Dr. Alvarez withheld key information about his tests.

Dr. Josiah Thompson was recently given access to the photo file of the shooting tests by one of Dr. Alvarez’s former graduate students, Paul Hoch, Ph.D. It turns out that the Alvarez team shot at lots of targets – coconuts, pineapples, water-filled jugs, etc. The only objects that demonstrated recoil were his “a priori best mock-up of a head,” the disanalogous melons. AFTE readers are invited to scour Dr. Alvarez’s paper, which we’ve linked to, for his mentioning anywhere these other, inconvenient shooting results. We won’t insult the intelligence of AFTE readers by recounting what happened when Alvarez’s team shot targets that were more analogous to skulls: coconuts.

Finally, Mr. Haag proffers John Lattimer, MD’s skull-shooting tests as proof of the jet effect that his own colleague from Edgewood had disproved and dismissed. Using a Mannlicher Carcano and firing downward at filled human skulls perched atop ladders, Dr. Lattimer’s skulls recoiled. In his book, Hear No Evil, Donald Thomas, Ph.D. explained why: “Lattimer’s diagrams reveal that the incoming angle of the bullet trajectory sloped downwards relative to the top of the ladder, with the justification that the assassin was shooting from an elevated position … But the downward angle would have had the effect of driving the skulls against the top of the ladder with a predictable result – a rebound.” (A video clip of Dr. Lattimer’s shooting tests shows the ladder rocking forward as the skull is driven against the top of the ladder.)

Clearly, the forward momentum Mr. Sturdivan had shown pushing his test skulls forward was what was being transmitted to the ladder, causing it to move forward while the skull rebounded. Unlike Dr. Lattimer’s skulls, the base of JFK’s skull and his chin were not resting on a hard, flat surface. (It is also worth mention that the “wounds” sustained by the blasted skulls were not, as Dr. Lattimer reported, “very similar to those of the President.”)

The results of Dr. Lattimer’s tests are in sharp contrast not only to those Mr. Sturdivan reported from the Biophysics Lab, but also to similar, skull-shooting tests conducted by University of Kansas’s pathology professor, Dr. John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., F.A.C.P. Rather than shooting down at skulls perched atop a flat surface, Dr. Nichols shot WCC ammo at both melons and cadaver material that were suspended by a wire. (Warren loyalist Paul Hoch, Ph.D. has said that this was the proper way to test for “jet effect” - personal communication.) Professor Nichols’ finding? “This study did not demonstrate the jet effect and would lead us to reject the jet effect as the basis for President Kennedy’s backward head movement.”

Inasmuch as Dr. Lattimer achieved such different results than Edgewood Arsenal and Dr. Nichols, Dr. Thomas observed, “this obvious difference in design would appear to be the explanation for the stark difference in the results.” Dr. Thomas also pointed out that, “Lattimer’s photographs of skulls do not show a jet plume. Instead they show a Kronlein Schuss effect with a blowout of material through the top of the skull. Lattimer did not achieve jet effect.”

JFK’s Rearward Lunge and Neuromuscular Reaction

Inasmuch as Dr. Thomas, Dr. Nichols, and Mr. Sturdivan are surely right that “jet effect” cannot explain Kennedy’s lunge, the only explanation Mr. Haag and Mr. Sturdivan have left that leaves Oswald standing in the dock is some variant of a neurological spasm, or as Mr. Sturdivan, who has no credentials in medicine, neurophysiology, etc., described it to the House Select Committee, a “neuromuscular reaction.” Without suppling a citation, as per his custom, Mr. Sturdivan writes in his riposte that “Dr. Michael Carey calls (JFK’s motion) a ‘decerebrate reaction. Look it up.’” We did look it up, if only to confirm what we already knew. We invite AFTE readers to do the same. We also looked up the fact that Mr. Sturdivan has elsewhere described JFK’s movement as a “decorticate reaction,” as if the two reactions were the same thing. Setting aside the fact they are not, JFK’s motions are neither.

In decorticate posturing the patient’s back arches backwards, the legs extend and the arms flex inward. In decerebrate posturing the patient’s back arches and the legs extend (as they do in decorticate posturing), but the arms extend out parallel to the body. If one compares his posture at Zapruder frame 230, or in any frame after the back shot but before the head shot, JFK’s arms are flexed inward toward his neck, reacting to the first shot. In the frames following the head shot, JFK’s head moves backward but his back does not arch; JFK’s legs do not extend. Nor do his arms flex or extend, but fall limply toward his lap as his upper, probably paralyzed, body follows his blasted cranium rearward.

Furthermore, in the frames following frame 327, 7/10ths seconds after the head shot, JFK’s head starts moving forward, his back then follows forward, too, but at a slower rate than his cranium, which moves forward at as fast a rate, or faster, than his head lunges backward after Zapruder frame 313. It thus “flexed” forward the same way it had “extended” backward: Kennedy’s back followed JFK’s head as it abruptly rocked forward. At no time did Kennedy’s back arch backward, nor did his legs extend, the basic requirements of decorticate and decerebrate posturing.

From the web, below are images contrasting decerebrate and decorticate posturing [click the essay’s URL at end of this quote to see the images]. JFK assumed neither posture in reaction to the head shot.

Decorticate posture results from damage to one or both corticospinal tracks. The upper arms are adducted and the forearms flexed, with the wrists and fingers flexed on the Decerebrate posture results from damage to the upper brain stem. The upper arms are adducted and the forearms arms are extended, with the wrists pronated and the fingers flexed. The legs are stiffly extended, with plantar flexion of the feet.

Can Momentum Transfer From a Grassy Knoll Shot Explain JFK’s Rearward Jolt?

Given that the President’s motions are neither decorticate nor decerebrate reactions, and given that a “jet effect” cannot explain them, what then of the possibility momentum transfer from a grassy knoll shot explains JFK’s backward snap?

In considering this option, we will use Mr. Sturdivan’s own work, a man with whom we do not always disagree. We agree with the testimony he gave concerning the skull-shooting tests conducted by Army’s Biophysics Lab that the House Select Committee. “All 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing,” Mr. Sturdivan swore, “They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet … .” (They saw no recoil from a “jet effect.”) Since jacketed bullets deliver momentum to skulls, it’s likely that skulls struck with soft-nosed, non-jacketed hunting rounds that flatten on impact would impart even more. We also agree with Mr. Sturdivan that “a similar explosion would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction” – from, say, a tangential shot from the right front. However we disagree with the faulty scientific premises Mr. Sturdivan used to argue that a shot from the right front could not have deposited sufficient rearward momentum to move JFK backward.

While referring to his momentum calculations derived from the skull shooting tests, he testified, “As we can see from the chart, this velocity of 1.2 feet per second is not the kind of velocity that would throw the President bodily around backwards, forwards, or in any direction no matter which direction the bullet came from. The deposit of momentum from the bullet is not sufficient to cause any dramatic movement in any direction.” (In his book, Mr. Sturdivan reported a higher velocity: “the (test) skull … moves forward at approximately 3 feet/sec, just as it must from the momentum deposited by the bullet.”) Mr. Sturdivan thus argued, as he testified, that a shot from behind would have caused “slight movement toward the front, which would very rapidly be damped by the connection of the neck with the body.” We will address two issues here.

First, it was author Josiah Thompson, Ph.D. who was the first to claim that the Zapruder film revealed that JFK’s head moved fleetingly forward between the clear frame 312 and the very blurred frame 313. However, additional studies done during the past several years have convinced Dr. Thompson and others that smear artifact in frame 313 gives the impression of forward motion that is uncertain and may be illusory. Second, Mr. Sturdivan’s conclusion that momentum transfer could not explain JFK’s skull motion was based on experiments using modestly powered Mannlicher Carcano rounds weighing 162 grains (0.023 lbs) that were fired from a distance of 90 yards. And he assumed the fatal bullet deposited half of its momentum when it struck Kennedy’s 15 pound skull. These assumptions are unreasonable, and they stack the deck. (For starters, why assume a grassy knoll gunman would use a Mannlicher Carcano?)

In his book, Hear No Evil, Don Thomas, Ph.D. has dissected Mr. Sturdivan’s analysis in considerable detail. With permission, we quote Dr. Thomas in extenso.

Mr. Sturdivan’s calculation, Dr. Thomas notes, was “derived indirectly from his tests shooting human skulls with a Mannlicher-Carcano. The bullet’s velocity at a distance of 90 yards was 1600 feet per second according to Sturdivan (in fact, the Army’s data indicated a value closer to 1800 fps) (sic). Sturdivan then divided this number in half on the supposition (unstated) (sic) that the bullet would deposit only half of its momentum. This supposition was apparently based on his observation that a velocity of something like ‘one foot-per-second’ was imparted to test skulls when shot with the Carcano. Somehow, Mr. Sturdivan managed to miss the point that the rearward movement might have involved a shot origination from the grassy knoll only 30 yards in front of the target, with consequently less loss of velocity from air resistance, than from a position 90 yards behind the President. It also seemed not to have occurred to Sturdivan that the President might have been shot from the grassy knoll with a different rifle than the modestly powered Mannlicher-Carcano….

“For the purposes of this discussion let us suppose that the hypothetical killer on the grassy knoll was armed with a .30-.30 rifle … (which) happens to have a muzzle velocity (2200 ft/ sec) very close to that of the Carcano, and fires a 170 grain bullet, slightly larger than the Carcano bullet. At 30 yards the projectile would have struck at a velocity of approximately 2100 fps … the momentum on impact with the head would be 50 ft-lb/sec. If one postulates a hunting bullet (in accordance with the X-ray evidence) (sic) which is designed to mushroom and deposit its energy at the wound instead of a fully jacketed bullet, we will allow a deposit of 80% of the momentum, leaving a residual velocity for the exiting bullet. This results in a momentum applied to the target of 40 ft-lb/sec; considerably more than Sturdivan’s stingy allowance of 18.4 ft-lb/sec.

“It is important to realize that at the time Kennedy was struck with the fatal shot at Z-312-3, he had most likely been paralyzed by the shot through the base of the neck (as Mr. Sturdivan admits). Consequently, his head was lolling forward, not supported by the muscles of the neck. This fact tends to minimize the damping effect (that so troubled Mr. Sturdivan) from the absorption of shock by the neck until after the head has snapped back. Assuming a head weight of 12 lbs, the velocity imparted to the head would be approximately 3.3 feet per second … .” (The same speed of the test skulls that Mr. Sturdivan reported in his book, though in JFK’s case it might have even been faster as most estimates put the weight of a human head at 10-11 lbs.)

From the study of the Zapruder film by Josiah Thompson, the observed rearward velocity for the head was roughly 1.6 feet per second after frame 313.

If Mr. Sturdivan is right that jacketed, Western Cartridge Company (WCC) shells moved blasted skulls forward at 3 ft/ sec, imagine how much faster skulls would move if hit with heavier, higher velocity, soft-nosed bullets; perhaps enough not only to move JFK’s skull “back to the left,” but also enough to even nudge his paralyzed upper body backward.

Mr. Haag argued that a “’synchronized’ or concurrent arrival of two bullets (one from the rear and one from the right front) is critical to nearly all conspiracy advocates’ claim of a second shooter.” Although Dr. Wecht has suggested this possibility in the past because of what was then accepted, as our understanding has matured, so has our interpretation of the events in Dealey Plaza. There need not have been two, near-simultaneous shots circa Zapruder 313. It’s more likely that there was just one – fired from the right front, striking tangentially near the top right portion of the President’s skull, with a portion of the bullet being deflected upward and to the left-rear of the limousine. The possibility that a second head shot struck from behind circa Z-327 is a tantalizing possibility, for it would explain why the President’s head swiftly rolled forward after that frame, at a time Mr. Sturdivan believes his “decorticate” or “decerebrate” “neuromuscular reaction” should have had him arching backward. (https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf)






Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 10, 2020, 01:58:28 AM
I’ve been saving this, and perhaps now is the time to share it, blah blah blah....

The real elephant in the room that's never been addressed is there is no logical reason for any conspirator to place a sniper in front when your Patsy is behind, just how stupid do you think these people were?

Another important fact that is constantly ignored is that in a crossfire from opposite ends of Dealey plaza the vastly different direction of shots would be as obvious as dogs proverbial's but besides people understandably confused about the actual origin of the shots, 94% of the earwitnesses that Thompson tallied say that the shots came from only ONE direction, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

(https://i.postimg.cc/C17qFYHc/Thompson-direction-of-shot.png)

JohnM

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 10, 2020, 02:10:18 AM
If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner, I have no desire for further discussion with you.

Given your response to my post about Lattimer's model (face sheet, tailored-shirts, etc.) was all diversion that showed some effort, and that you're an unceasing Trump defender, I going with "too stupid" rather than "too lazy."

Quote
Well, umm, tailor-made shirts are designed to fit the person well. Another "magical quality" that would have prevented Kennedy's shirt from bunching significantly would have been that the lower part of his back was pinning the shirt against the seat. Plus, photos and film of JFK 2-15 seconds before the first shot show that his coat was only slightly bunched.

You think Kennedy's shirt was a pair of long-johns? Why wouldn't a shirt have some give and pull out a bit? Once out, it's unlikely to tuck itself back in.

Quote
I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly? This has been known for decades. Both holes put the wound about 5 inches below the collar line.

I'm certainly unaware the holes in the President's jacket and shirt exist in "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Can you provide measurements to prove your statement? Or were you just trading in absolutes and hyperbole like Wecht and Trump?

Quote
If the autopsy sheet is marked "verified," one logically assumes that it has been, well, "verified." And isn't it just a whopping coincidence that the death certificate, which was also marked "verified," puts the back wound at T3? So Boswell and Burkley couldn't tell the difference between C7/T1 and T3? Really?

There is some thought that Burkley based his T3 location using the President's clothing, unaware the clothing had bunched during the motorcade. Boswell signed an autopsy report that located the wound at the base of the back of the neck, and said not to use his mark on the face sheet but the measurements written nearby. Those 14cm measurements get you to a wound on the base of the back of the neck that is at the C7 level.

Quote
Dr. Ebersole thought the wound was closer to T4. Was he blind too?

Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the back wound was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Another blind man?

You've got the benefit of the back wound autopsy photo, have "studied" it for decades, and you can't figure out it shows the wound at C7, even when I show you visually how it does, and refer you to the autopsy report and Clark Panel Review that describe a wound at the base of the back of the neck.

Quote
Sibert and O'Neill both put the back wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, as did the FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy. The ARRB released the diagrams that Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill drew of the back wound for the HSCA. I trust you know what those diagrams show, right? They put the wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, just as does the face sheet and the death certificate and Dr. Ebersole and Clint Hill. What a coincidence, hey?

Again, if you can get a "low" back wound from the autopsy photo, why wouldn't they take away a similar false impression? Plus some of those witnesses were influenced by shoddy CT books and websites, or "gotten to" firsthand by kooks.

Your problem is that authenticated photos don't lie. The autopsy photos show an entry wound at the base of the back of the neck at C7 and another wound at the throat at T1. The Clark Panel and HSCA Medical Evidence Panel had no problem looking at the photos and concluding the bullet transited the neck going downward.

Quote
I hope you can regain your civility, or I won't be responding to you again.

You apparently have some resistance to being schooled. If you want to educate yourself (about the assassination and about Trump), there are many excellent posts here that would benefit you.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 10, 2020, 03:29:22 AM
Given your response to my post about Lattimer's model (face sheet, tailored-shirts, etc.) was all diversion that showed some effort, and that you're an unceasing Trump defender, I going with "too stupid" rather than "too lazy." [Lame, erroneous, and evasive lone-gunman arguments snipped]

I told you that if could not maintain civility, I would not respond to you. Go try to find someone else who will sink down to your level. I will not waste time dealing with such juvenile rudeness. Goodbye.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM

Given your response to my post about Lattimer's model (face sheet, tailored-shirts, etc.) was all diversion that showed some effort, and that you're an unceasing Trump defender, I going with "too stupid" rather than "too lazy."

Hello Jerry

I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender. He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.

He has a whole website on that at:

 http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/ (http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/)

He describes the Civil War as:

The War of Northern Aggression
The War for Southern Independence

Under Causes of the War
          What Caused the Civil War? An Attempt at a Balanced Answer by Gordon Leidner

Who makes the case that the causes of the Civil War were complex?

They were not complex. For the South, it was to maintain slavery.

For the North, it was to maintain the Union. If democracies can split up, perhaps this is a fatal flaw that will allow nations governed by Tyrants, which do not split up, to gobble up smaller democracies Perhaps this would be a fatal flaw in democracies that could cause them to disappear from the Earth. Maybe America is so remote, its not an issue. But America, for better or worse, is a model of Democracy for the rest of the world, much of it is menaced by Tyrannies to this day. In any case, right or wrong, many Union supporters felt this way.

After 1865, Confederate supporters downplayed the issue of slavery. But in 1861, while 9 of the seceding states did not give their reasons (I would guess they did not want to be on record of admitting Secession was to maintain slavery) four states did. They issued their own sort of “Declaration of Independence” where they issued their reasons, just like the original 1776 Declaration.

At the top of the list was the menace of the North to the instruction of slavery.

Another major concern was States Rights. They were against it. What ? ! ? ! ? Yes, they were. Three of the four complained about state laws that conflicted with Federal Law, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Now, if you are a real States Rights supporter, you should feel that Vermont has the right to determine if a black man is an escaped slave by not using its own method, if it doesn’t like the method specified in Federal law. And Federal law, by the way, rewarded the ‘Judge’ in the case an extra 5 dollars, I believe in gold, if he ruled the black man in question was indeed an escaped slave. Personally, I think his reward should not have been 5 dollars in gold but 30 pieces of silver, since the Bible says "As you do to the least of these, so you do to me”, but I guess Congress felt they had to take into account inflation.

So, yes, if you go with what the South said after 1865, the reasons for Secession were complicated. But if you go with the reasons for Secession that they stated in 1861, they weren’t.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2020, 06:15:45 AM
Another attempt to poison the well with a completely off-topic smear.

Elliott does that a lot.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 10, 2020, 07:00:30 PM
More from Griffith, who writes in a new topic pointlessly spun off the discussion in this thread:

    "When I recently mentioned in another thread that the holes in JFK’s coat and shirt overlap
     and align with each other, one longtime WC apologist called this factual statement “kooky.”
     But the fact that the holes overlap and align almost exactly has been known for decades."

Of course what I actually found kooky was Griffith's claim that the shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat."

Griffith himself can't back up it up. He writes in the new topic:

    "The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar
     and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt
      is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline."

That's not "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Griffith apparently went and looked up those measurements only after I called him out on it. The measurements show that the jacket and shirt had similar but naturally-random displacements, not exact. From what we see of the jacket it exhibits a clothing bunch at the President's nape. Being looser material, the shirt might have raised up due to several wrinkles. At Love Field, the President had reached into the crowd and he waved at people in high buildings during the motorcade.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/unstained.jpg)

Griffith is like his hero the Donald, overstating claims, promoting lost causes and full of baloney.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 10, 2020, 10:25:08 PM
It turns out that Dr. Art Snyder, physicist at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory, did not tell Josiah Thompson that there is no forward movement in Z312-313, but that the alleged forward movement of 2.3 inches does not occur. I wish Thompson had made this clear in his 2007 article. However, Thompson did end the paragraph by saying “the two-inch forward movement was just not there”:

Quote
Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_3.html)

I was more than happy to realize that my inference from Thompson’s statement was unfounded.

Dr. Snyder says the forward head movement in Z312-313 is about 1/3 of the Itek-Thompson value. Snyder measures the forward movement as being about 0.3 meters per second, which equals =0.63 inches in one frame. I quote Snyder:

Quote
The measurements of Itek and Thompson are almost inconsistent with a shot from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The motion is so large that nearly all the momentum of the bullet is needed to account for it. However, quantitatively Thompson and Itek were mistaken. The apparent motion between Zapruder frames Z312 and Z313 is an artifact of the blurring of frame Z313. This is not to say that JFK’s head did not move forward between frames Z312 and Z313, but that the Z313 blur obscures the motion so that it cannot be measured using these frames. The actual forward motion (~0.3 meter/sec) can be estimated by comparing Z313 to Z314. It is about 1/3 the value obtained using the Itek or Thompson measurements—consistent with a Carcano bullet imparting ~1/3 its momentum and ~1/2 its energy. (“Case Still Open: Skepticism and the Assassination of JFK,” Skeptic, volume 6, number 4, 1998, p. 53)

So instead of the head moving forward 2.3 inches in Z312-313, Snyder says it moves forward about 0.63 inches. (Take 0.3 meters per second. Take the Zapruder camera speed, which was 18.3 frames per second, or 18.3 frames per 1,000 milliseconds. Divide 0.3 meters by 18.3. That equals 0.16 meters in one frame, or 0.63 inches in one frame.)

So if a bullet from the rear could move the head 0.63 inches forward in one frame (55 milliseconds), why could not a bullet from the front have moved the head backward at the same speed?

In his “Bedrock Evidence” essay, Thompson notes that David Wimp has determined through careful measurements that the upper bodies of the limo occupants begin to move forward at about Z308. He also mentions evidence of a head shot after Z313.

The idea of a shot to the head after Z313 has surprisingly good evidence on its side. The first two reenactments in Dealey Plaza put the head shot as occurring when the limousine was 294 feet from the sixth-floor window, 29 feet farther down the street than the limo was at Z313. Dr. Mantik observes,

Quote
. . . these re-enactments as well as associated documents and eyewitness statements, place the final head shot (the second, in my view) about 30 to 40 feet farther down Elm Street than Z-313. Warren Commission data tables actually place the final shot at 294 ft. from the "sniper's" window, not the 265 ft. that corresponds to Z313. (“The Zapruder Film Controversy,” p. 24, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf)

Chuck Marler explores the evidence for a post-Z313 head shot in great depth in his chapter in Assassination Science, from which the following is quoted:

Quote
The distinct possibility that there was a final shot, one which struck the President after Zapruder frame 313, has been once again raised by studying the precise measurements in the 5 December 1963, survey plat, reexamining the testimony of Emmett Hudson, comparing the reference in CE-875 that the third shot struck at the "5+00" mark (which was west of Z-313), and looking at CE-2111 which stated the limousine was opposite the manhole cover at the final shot (the manhole cover is west of 313). Secret Service Agent Clint Hill also testified he heard the sound of a shot "just about as I reached it (the limousine)." (p. 258)

The 12/5/1963 survey done by the Secret Service put three marks on Elm Street to represent shots. These marks corresponded approximately to Z208, Z276, and Z358.




Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 11, 2020, 11:10:44 PM

It turns out that Dr. Art Snyder, physicist at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory, did not tell Josiah Thompson that there is no forward movement in Z312-313, but that the alleged forward movement of 2.3 inches does not occur. I wish Thompson had made this clear in his 2007 article. However, Thompson did end the paragraph by saying “the two-inch forward movement was just not there”:

Question:

Does Dr. Art Synder provide a table, like William Hoffman did, showing his estimate of the President’s head at each frame from let’s say z305 through z320?


If all he says is that he estimates the head was only 0.63 inches ahead of the z312 position, that doesn’t give us much information on the speed of the head over time.



Dr. Snyder says the forward head movement in Z312-313 is about 1/3 of the Itek-Thompson value. Snyder measures the forward movement as being about 0.3 meters per second, which equals =0.63 inches in one frame. I quote Snyder:

So instead of the head moving forward 2.3 inches in Z312-313, Snyder says it moves forward about 0.63 inches.

I suspect the estimates are off, but at least the math checks out close, except 0.3 meters per second should be more like 0.645 inches per frame, not 0.63 inches per frame.



(Take 0.3 meters per second. Take the Zapruder camera speed, which was 18.3 frames per second, or 18.3 frames per 1,000 milliseconds. Divide 0.3 meters by 18.3. That equals 0.16 meters in one frame, or 0.63 inches in one frame.)

Should read, to make the math correct, although the estimate can still be incorrect:

(Take 0.3 meters per second. Take the Zapruder camera speed, which was 18.3 frames per second, or 18.3 frames per 1,000 milliseconds. Divide 0.3 meters by 18.3. That equals 0.016 meters in one frame, or 0.645 inches in one frame.)



So if a bullet from the rear could move the head 0.63 inches forward in one frame (55 milliseconds), why could not a bullet from the front have moved the head backward at the same speed?

A frontal bullet could start moving the head back at around 0.63 inches per frame. But the head should not continue to accelerate to 1.9 inches per frame by z318, as seen in the Zapruder film. Its basic Physics.

And no, the acceleration of the limousine cannot account for that. The acceleration is only one tenth of the acceleration needed to do this.



The idea of a shot to the head after Z313 has surprisingly good evidence on its side. The first two reenactments in Dealey Plaza put the head shot as occurring when the limousine was 294 feet from the sixth-floor window, 29 feet farther down the street than the limo was at Z313.

Dr. Mantik observes, Chuck Marler explores the evidence for a post-Z313 head shot in great depth in his chapter in Assassination Science, from which the following is quoted:

The 12/5/1963 survey done by the Secret Service put three marks on Elm Street to represent shots. These marks corresponded approximately to Z208, Z276, and Z358.

I would not say that this provide good evidence of a shot after z313 but good evidence that the Secret Service were poor surveyors.

No mark at z312-313 but marks at z208, z276 and z358 ? ! ?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 12, 2020, 07:42:25 PM
Speaking of human neuromuscular reaction times, the following does not deal with Kennedy’s head movement, but it does deal with the much more  modest movement of his right hand that begins in Z225, even if the movement was involuntary. Experts for the prosecution and the defense both agreed that at least 200 milliseconds, or around four Zapruder frames, would have elapsed between bullet impact and JFK’s reaction, even if the movement was reflexive/involuntary.

Dr. Robert Piziali, a wound ballistics expert, stated under cross examination at the 1992 American Bar Association mock Oswald trial that if Kennedy began to react to a wound at Z225, this would mean the bullet could have struck him no later than Z221. Dr. Piziali, who supervised the Failure Analysis research for the 1992 mock Oswald trial, explained there would have been a delay of four frames, or about 200 milliseconds, between the bullet's impact and Kennedy's reaction to it with his right hand. He said a "reflexive reaction" to bullet impact would take "approximately 200 ms” (see trial transcript in Harrison Livingstone, Killing the Truth, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993, pp. 224-236; see also http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12%3Athesingle-bullet%22fact%22).

Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy, testifying for the defense in the 1992 mock Oswald trial, agreed that it would have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames, for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him start to do in Z225:

Quote
Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame, 225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed and the time that frame 225 was filmed?

Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an opinion as to when the President was hit with the bullet--how much before this point?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your mind to a muscle before you can get movement. . . . It takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to full power--to get the muscles to move.

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film would that be?

Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 at a minimum [i.e., at the latest, and notice this is just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]

Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224 according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same bullet?

Dr. McCARTHY. No. (Killing the Truth, pp. 235-236)

This agreement by prosecution and defense experts on the time required for Kennedy to involuntarily move his right arm after bullet impact casts further doubt on the specious claim that a neuromuscular reaction could have caused JFK's backward head movement in the space of just 40-50 milliseconds. And this is not to mention the observable fact that Kennedy's reaction looks like nothing like the goat's reaction in the goat films.

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on July 12, 2020, 08:07:18 PM
I told you that if could not maintain civility, I would not respond to you. Go try to find someone else who will sink down to your level. I will not waste time dealing with such juvenile rudeness. Goodbye.

Dear Mike,

Well-spoken and I totally agree, but you do have a typo.

(You left out the word "you".)

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Are you really a Trump supporter?

You do realize he's a traitor, don't you?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 12, 2020, 08:27:15 PM
Speaking of human neuromuscular reaction times, the following does not deal with Kennedy’s head movement, but it does deal with the much more  modest movement of his right hand that begins in Z225, even if the movement was involuntary. Experts for the prosecution and the defense both agreed that at least 200 milliseconds, or around four Zapruder frames, would have elapsed between bullet impact and JFK’s reaction, even if the movement was reflexive/involuntary.

Dr. Robert Piziali, a wound ballistics expert, stated under cross examination at the 1992 American Bar Association mock Oswald trial that if Kennedy began to react to a wound at Z225, this would mean the bullet could have struck him no later than Z221. Dr. Piziali, who supervised the Failure Analysis research for the 1992 mock Oswald trial, explained there would have been a delay of four frames, or about 200 milliseconds, between the bullet's impact and Kennedy's reaction to it with his right hand. He said a "reflexive reaction" to bullet impact would take "approximately 200 ms” (see trial transcript in Harrison Livingstone, Killing the Truth, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993, pp. 224-236; see also http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12%3Athesingle-bullet%22fact%22).

Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy, testifying for the defense in the 1992 mock Oswald trial, agreed that it would have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames, for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him start to do in Z225:

This agreement by prosecution and defense experts on the time required for Kennedy to involuntarily move his right arm after bullet impact casts further doubt on the specious claim that a neuromuscular reaction could have caused JFK's backward head movement in the space of just 40-50 milliseconds. And this is not to mention the observable fact that Kennedy's reaction looks like nothing like the goat's reaction in the goat films.

"Movement caused by the sudden interruption of the spinal nerves below the cord injury would have appeared much faster than a startle reflex, probably even faster than a spinal reflex. In a spinal reflex, the nerve impulse travels from the hand to the spine and back down to the muscles without having to go through the brain. This typically takes less than one-quarter of a second, or about four frames in the Zapruder film. In a direct reaction to a spinal injury, the uninterrupted impulse only has to make the 'outward' path to initiate the movement of the arm. This would probably take a little more than half the time of a spinal reflex." -- The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, by Larry Sturdivan, page 158

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 12, 2020, 08:52:18 PM

Experts for the prosecution and the defense both agreed that at least 200 milliseconds, or around four Zapruder frames, would have elapsed between bullet impact and JFK’s reaction, even if the movement was reflexive/involuntary.


“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.” [https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]

The touch stimulus of 150 milliseconds refers to an external stimulus being applied and the reaction to it. JFK's 'hand snap' is not a reaction, it is a reflex and to imagine there is no difference between a reaction and a reflex displays a deep lack of understanding regarding this issue. The 'hand snap' is a Withdrawal (Nociceptive Flexion) Reflex in response to a stimulus applied directly to the Central Nervous System (CNS). With this type of reflex the time taken for the stimulus to be detected and reach the CNS for processing is eliminated as the stimulus is being applied directly to the CNS. This type of reflex is far quicker than a reaction.
The 200 millisecond measurement you quote is hopelessly outdated and is reflected in your analysis.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 12, 2020, 09:01:13 PM
“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.” [https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]

The touch stimulus of 150 milliseconds refers to an external stimulus being applied and the reaction to it. JFK's 'hand snap' is not a reaction, it is a reflex and to imagine there is no difference between a reaction and a reflex displays a deep lack of understanding regarding this issue. The 'hand snap' is a Withdrawal (Nociceptive Flexion) Reflex in response to a stimulus applied directly to the Central Nervous System (CNS). With this type of reflex the time taken for the stimulus to be detected and reach the CNS for processing is eliminated as the stimulus is being applied directly to the CNS. This type of reflex is far quicker than a reaction.
The 200 millisecond measurement you quote is hopelessly outdated and is reflected in your analysis.

Sturdivan's "uninterrupted impulse" theory would also cut the response time in half. However, I'm not fully onboard with that theory. It doesn't accurately account for Connally's rapid reaction. Sturdivan wrongly has Connally reacting later than Kennedy.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on July 12, 2020, 09:13:58 PM
Another attempt to poison the well with a completely off-topic smear.

Elliott does that a lot.

Iacoletti,

And your comments from the peanut gallery are somehow "on topic"?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 12, 2020, 09:50:48 PM
Sturdivan's "uninterrupted impulse" theory would also cut the response time in half. However, I'm not fully onboard with that theory. It doesn't accurately account for Connally's rapid reaction. Sturdivan wrongly has Connally reacting later than Kennedy.

Both men are shot through in z224, the time it takes for the bullet to pass through both men is so small we can, for our purposes, consider it instantaneous. In z225 JFK's hand begins to snap shut, this is a reflex that probably indicates the bullet that has passed through him, very close to his spine and high up on his back, has severed one of the plexus of nerves that emanates from this part of the spinal column and are directly connected to the hand.
However, it's not a reaction to the bullet, it's a reflex. We see the reaction of both men to being shot in z226, Kennedy's left elbow is raised into view, his right hand has snapped fully shut and is moving towards his throat. Connally's Stetson begins to shoot up, this is the first moment of the sudden thrashing around and twisting in his seat that can clearly be seen in the full Zfilm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYg0tyRK/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 12, 2020, 10:55:07 PM


Both men are shot through in z224, the time it takes for the bullet to pass through both men is so small we can, for our purposes, consider it instantaneous. In z225 JFK's hand begins to snap shut, this is a reflex that probably indicates the bullet that has passed through him, very close to his spine and high up on his back, has severed one of the plexus of nerves that emanates from this part of the spinal column and are directly connected to the hand.
However, it's not a reaction to the bullet, it's a reflex. We see the reaction of both men to being shot in z226, Kennedy's left elbow is raised into view, his right hand has snapped fully shut and is moving towards his throat. Connally's Stetson begins to shoot up, this is the first moment of the sudden thrashing around and twisting in his seat that can clearly be seen in the full Zfilm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYg0tyRK/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)


Hello Dan

The best study on the exact timing of the bullet that struck both men was conducted by Dr. Lattimer back in the 1990’s. He used neck from a hog and a rib cage from a hog. The rib cage had a shirt button around it, a neck tie was knotted and a coat placed over it, as a model for the Governor. A Carcano rifle with WCC/MC bullets was fired through both the “neck” and the “torso” models, separated by 24 inches.

It is all described below:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt)

This test showed that the coat’s maximum movement, its maximum bulge, occurred 3/30 of a second after bullet impact. It appears the movement was caused not by the bullet, which passed through at 0/30 seconds, slicing through the coat without moving it much, but by debris that came flying out of the chest wound and struck the coat, causing the whole right side of the coat to swing forward and perhaps the lapel to flip upward. It’s hard for me to tell what happened in the Zapruder film other than the coat moved.

The coat movement reached its peak at z224. 3/30 of a second before, or 1/10 of a second before, corresponds to Frame 222. Until better tests are run than those conducted by Dr. Lattimer, Frame 222 has to be considered as the most likely moment of impact.

This also corresponds with the strong camera jiggle of Mr. Zapruder’s camera that occurs at z227. The Camera Jiggle, judging by the strong camera jiggle at z318, should occur 5 to 6 frames after a bullet strike, so this corresponds to frame 222 better than frame 224.

So, the bullet was fired at z220. The bullet struck both men at frame 222. By frame 224 the coat’s forward movement reaches its maximum. And by frame 226, both the President’s and the Governor’s right arm abruptly starts rising.



As an aside, I would urge caution in putting the bullet impact too late. A strike at z224, or even z223, opens the door up to CTers to go to their standard claim “The reactions are too fast to be humanly possible”. Popular for both the z222 and the z312 bullet strike. They would make the same claim about a third strike on the President or the Governor if we LNers believed there was a third strike. Frame 222 is the best estimate. I’m not placing it earlier than it should be, except a CTer might point out that z222 is 110 milliseconds before z224, not 100. Even so, Frame 222 is the best estimate we have, subject to future testing of the nature Dr. Lattimer carried out.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 12, 2020, 11:36:54 PM
People see the “reactions” that they expect to see when interpreting the Z film. If you think both men were hit by one bullet, then you’ll see a simultaneous reaction. If you think they were hit by separate bullets then you’ll see separate reactions.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 13, 2020, 02:12:18 AM

As an aside, I would urge caution in putting the bullet impact too late. A strike at z224, or even z223, opens the door up to CTers to go to their standard claim “The reactions are too fast to be humanly possible”. Popular for both the z222 and the z312 bullet strike. They would make the same claim about a third strike on the President or the Governor if we LNers believed there was a third strike. Frame 222 is the best estimate. I’m not placing it earlier than it should be, except a CTer might point out that z222 is 110 milliseconds before z224, not 100. Even so, Frame 222 is the best estimate we have, subject to future testing of the nature Dr. Lattimer carried out.

Hi Joe,

The way I'see it at the moment is that the argument for an impact earlier than z224 is the preceding frame in which Connally is sat looking completely untroubled.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGXSML9/z223.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The Croft photo can be fairly accurately synchronised with z160, give or take a few frames. In it we see Connally looking towards his wife, Nellie. If we roll the Zfilm forward from this point and focus on Connally we can just about make out him looking towards his left then turning his head to the right. He stays in this position as he passes behind the Stemmons sign. As he emerges from behind the sign the first good look at him is z223 in which he looks totally calm and composed and his jacket hasn't started to bulge. It seems clear to me he has not been shot. In z224 we see the right-hand side of his jacket beginning to bulge, this is the shot which passed through both men. z225 the beginning of JFK's 'hand snap' reflex, z226 both men begin to react to being shot.
Because I'm so green here I'm not sure what a CTer or a LNer is or what they think, I can only make my judgement off what I'm actually seeing and will only listen to arguments that I find compelling (the Larsen/Graves identification of Gloria Calvery being a good example).


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 13, 2020, 02:44:01 AM
Hi Joe,

The way I'see it at the moment is that the argument for an impact earlier than z224 is the preceding frame in which Connally is sat looking completely untroubled.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGXSML9/z223.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The Croft photo can be fairly accurately synchronised with z160, give or take a few frames. In it we see Connally looking towards his wife, Nellie. If we roll the Zfilm forward from this point and focus on Connally we can just about make out him looking towards his left then turning his head to the right. He stays in this position as he passes behind the Stemmons sign. As he emerges from behind the sign the first good look at him is z223 in which he looks totally calm and composed and his jacket hasn't started to bulge. It seems clear to me he has not been shot. In z224 we see the right-hand side of his jacket beginning to bulge, this is the shot which passed through both men. z225 the beginning of JFK's 'hand snap' reflex, z226 both men begin to react to being shot.
Because I'm so green here I'm not sure what a CTer or a LNer is or what they think, I can only make my judgement off what I'm actually seeing and will only listen to arguments that I find compelling (the Larsen/Graves identification of Gloria Calvery being a good example).

A CTer is an OAKisser
An LNer is an OAKicker
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 13, 2020, 02:55:53 AM
A CTer is an OAKisser
An LNer is an OAKicker

Thanks Bill that's really cleared things up  ???

Oswald Ass Kisser
Oswald Ass Kicker
Conspiracy Theorist(er)
LNer ??

Actually that doesn't make sense to me. Isn't a CTer a OAKicker?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on July 13, 2020, 03:03:29 AM
People see the “reactions” that they expect to see when interpreting the Z film. If you think both men were hit by one bullet, then you’ll see a simultaneous reaction. If you think they were hit by separate bullets then you’ll see separate reactions.

Iacoletti,

One particular member of this forum can only see blobs, especially if he thinks it might somehow incriminate Oswald.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 13, 2020, 03:05:12 AM

The way I'see it at the moment is that the argument for an impact earlier than z224 is the preceding frame in which Connally is sat looking completely untroubled.

The Croft photo can be fairly accurately synchronised with z160, give or take a few frames. In it we see Connally looking towards his wife, Nellie. If we roll the Zfilm forward from this point and focus on Connally we can just about make out him looking towards his left then turning his head to the right. He stays in this position as he passes behind the Stemmons sign. As he emerges from behind the sign the first good look at him is z223 in which he looks totally calm and composed and his jacket hasn't started to bulge. It seems clear to me he has not been shot. In z224 we see the right-hand side of his jacket beginning to bulge, this is the shot which passed through both men. z225 the beginning of JFK's 'hand snap' reflex, z226 both men begin to react to being shot.


An impact at z222 should not cause Connally to show pain in his face by z223. That would be too fast a reaction. So, his face showing no pain at z223 is no reason to reject an impact at z222.

Reaction times are hard to estimate. You can’t just shoot someone to find out. People can claim the reaction should start in 100 milliseconds or 150 milliseconds or 200 milliseconds. There is never going to be a way to test these claims.

How long it takes a coat to move is something that can be tested, as many times as one likes. This is clearly the rational method to estimate when the bullet impact took place. And these tests have been done and show the coat moves 100 milliseconds after the bullet passes through it. I’m not going to overrule these real-world tests just because someone claims, with no real-world supporting evidence, that the face would register pain in 55 milliseconds.

Question:

Should our estimates on when the bullet impact took place be based on reactions we cannot test or on reactions we can test?

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 13, 2020, 05:23:11 AM
Thanks Bill that's really cleared things up  ???

Oswald Ass Kisser
Oswald Ass Kicker
Conspiracy Theorist(er)
LNer ??

Actually that doesn't make sense to me. Isn't a CTer a OAKicker?

ass arse

LN = Lone nutter = Oswald did it alone
CT = Conspiracy Theorists = AnyBodyButOswald = A gazillion conspiracy theories
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 13, 2020, 05:45:12 AM
and will only listen to arguments that I find compelling

 :D
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 13, 2020, 10:25:52 AM


An impact at z222 should not cause Connally to show pain in his face by z223. That would be too fast a reaction. So, his face showing no pain at z223 is no reason to reject an impact at z222.

Reaction times are hard to estimate. You can’t just shoot someone to find out. People can claim the reaction should start in 100 milliseconds or 150 milliseconds or 200 milliseconds. There is never going to be a way to test these claims.

How long it takes a coat to move is something that can be tested, as many times as one likes. This is clearly the rational method to estimate when the bullet impact took place. And these tests have been done and show the coat moves 100 milliseconds after the bullet passes through it. I’m not going to overrule these real-world tests just because someone claims, with no real-world supporting evidence, that the face would register pain in 55 milliseconds.

Question:

Should our estimates on when the bullet impact took place be based on reactions we cannot test or on reactions we can test?


Hi Joe,

You are quite right, after looking at my post again I've put too much emphasis on Connally's appearance and obviously he wouldn't be reacting to the shot that quickly. Even in z224 where we can see his jacket beginning to move his face looks unconcerned (by the way, you previously stated that z224 showed the maximum bulge of the jacket which is wrong. In z225 the jacket has clearly bulged out further, it seems fairly obvious):

Question: Should we trust our own eyes or some dodgy, assumption-led test?

The part of my reply that you edited out in such an heroic fashion referred to the jacket bulging and it was this part of my response I should have emphasised, it is this that demonstrates when the bullet has passed through both men:

Question: Should you critique the complete response or edit it to suit your own needs?

The jacket bulging is an instantaneous mechanical response to an impact. You talk about tests where the bullet passes straight through the jacket which then moves 100 milliseconds later. It is all based on the assumption that the bullet passed cleanly through the jacket. In your earlier post you claim the jacket is moved by the 'debris' that exits Connally's chest. So you are claiming the bullet passes through Connally and the jacket after which the 'debris' waits for 100 milliseconds before exiting:

Question: Do you see the corner you've painted yourself into?

I'm not saying you do, but if anyone believes CE 399 shattered Connally's wrist bone, the thick end of the radius, and came out looking like it did is suffering from 'Magical Thinking'. I accept that some kind of miraculous event may have possibly occurred but I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket. At the moment my intuition is telling me the bullet that passed through JFK and then shattered Connally's rib had lost enough momentum to have difficulty getting through Connally's jacket, causing it to bulge on contact - z224. I need to go to dodgytesting.com to find something that corroborates my hunch.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 13, 2020, 10:48:55 AM
A CTer is an OAKisser
An LNer is an OAKicker
A heads up for all.

Calling a fellow member either of the above acronyms may be construed by some as a personal insult, and if reported as such by the allegedly insulted member, would result, after consideration by admin, in a posting ban which would require a readmission fee of ($20) in order to allow posting privileges to be restored.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 13, 2020, 01:31:39 PM
Look, Governor Connally himself said he was positive he was not hit before Z234, and he's the guy who took the hit, who felt it, and who knows his body better than anyone else. The autopsy doctors established at the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point. They had to destroy the first draft of the autopsy report and rewrite it when they realized this would not work for the lone-gunman theory. When Dr. Mantik examined the autopsy x-rays, he found there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine. Dr. Nichols, a professor of pathology, deduced the same fact without the benefit of seeing the x-rays.

The holes in the back of Kennedy's coat and shirt prove the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory--and no, the coat and shirt did not magically bunch up in nearly perfect correspondence to create two overlapping holes that were at least 2 inches lower than the wound. We have numerous witnesses--federal agents, medical technicians, and doctors--who said the back wound was about 5 inches down from the top of the collar, that it was visibly below the top of the shoulder blade. And we have known for years, from a document that was never supposed to be seen--the transcript of the 27 January 1964 WC executive session--that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade. Rankin even referred to a picture (obviously one of the autopsy photos) which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade." But none of this matters to lone-gunman theorists, because they must cling to the absurd single-bullet theory since there can be no lone-gunman theory without it.

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread:

I think objective readers will notice that the WC apologists who are replying in this thread have no good answers for the powerful evidence against the neurospasm theory and the jet-effect theory. They can't even admit that the damage that the HSCA FPP said was done at T1 would have prevented the lightening-quick neuromuscular reaction that they say occurred. Nor will they acknowledge the readily observable fact that Kennedy's reaction to the headshot is nothing like the goat's reaction in the goat films, which makes the neurospasm theory downright silly from the get-go. And the specious nature of their position can be seen in the fact that in one breath they say that a bullet from behind pushed Kennedy's head forward by 0.6 to 2.3 inches in 40 milliseconds but that a bullet from the front could not have caused Kennedy's head to move backward to any degree.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Ross Lidell on July 13, 2020, 02:09:31 PM
Look, Governor Connally himself said he was positive he was not hit before Z234, and he's the guy who took the hit, who felt it, and who knows his body better than anyone else. The autopsy doctors established at the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point. They had to destroy the first draft of the autopsy report and rewrite it when they realized this would not work for the lone-gunman theory. When Dr. Mantik examined the autopsy x-rays, he found there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine. Dr. Nichols, a professor of pathology, deduced the same fact without the benefit of seeing the x-rays.

The holes in the back of Kennedy's coat and shirt prove the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory--and no, the coat and shirt did not magically bunch up in nearly perfect correspondence to create two overlapping holes that were at least 2 inches lower than the wound. We have numerous witnesses--federal agents, medical technicians, and doctors--who said the back wound was about 5 inches down from the top of the collar, that it was visibly below the top of the shoulder blade. And we have known for years, from a document that was never supposed to be seen--the transcript of the 27 January 1964 WC executive session--that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade. Rankin even referred to a picture (obviously one of the autopsy photos) which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade." But none of this matters to lone-gunman theorists, because they must cling to the absurd single-bullet theory since there can be no lone-gunman theory without it.

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread:

I think objective readers will notice that the WC apologists who are replying in this thread have no good answers for the powerful evidence against the neurospasm theory and the jet-effect theory. They can't even admit that the damage that the HSCA FPP said was done at T1 would have prevented the lightening-quick neuromuscular reaction that they say occurred. Nor will they acknowledge the readily observable fact that Kennedy's reaction to the headshot is nothing like the goat's reaction in the goat films, which makes the neurospasm theory downright silly from the get-go. And the specious nature of their position can be seen in the fact that in one breath they say that a bullet from behind pushed Kennedy's head forward by 0.6 to 2.3 inches in 40 milliseconds but that a bullet from the front could not have caused Kennedy's head to move backward to any degree.

So you believe that a bullet fired from the grassy knoll caused the "back and to the left" movement of President Kennedy?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Brian Roselle on July 13, 2020, 04:10:35 PM
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
 
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just  transversed).  I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move.  The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.

The right jacket area looked fully extended at z224, so if that is the result of the bullet’s imparted velocity on mass movement (chest debris or the jacket itself), the bullet transiting was a bit earlier.

The jacket may have been in its initial stages of motion as early as z223, but the displacement not quite great enough yet to readily pick out.

Of course this dynamic has been argued as speculative, but there is one other piece I observed that appears to be relevant or possibly supportive.

2 frames before the full jacket displacement at z224, at z222, I see the cuff of Connally’s white shirt of his right arm just a bit out from his suit jacket sleeve, visible just above the edge of the limo as his hand holds his hat.

In less than or equal to 55 ms, at z223, it appears to have been be driven down, totally out of view.

In the next frame at z224 the jacket flip becomes maximally visible. If his right wrist was struck violently in a downward manner by a bullet, might one expect the wrist to disappear from view in a manner like this very quickly?  If a bullet hit the wrist and drove it out of view between 222 and 223, the shot may actually have been triggered around z219 with the bullet approaching the limo ~z221?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 13, 2020, 07:25:07 PM

The part of my reply that you edited out in such an heroic fashion referred to the jacket bulging and it was this part of my response I should have emphasised, it is this that demonstrates when the bullet has passed through both men:

Question: Should you critique the complete response or edit it to suit your own needs?
The only thing I edited out was a line that said “Hi Joe” and the following picture.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGXSML9/z223.png) (https://postimages.org/)

II edited this out because too many times, the same lines and the same pictures get presented over and over again, making harder to sift through for new information. I was not hiding evidence. You said this frame shows no reaction Connally’s face at z223. And I totally agreed, but pointed out that z222 is way to soon to rule out an impact at z222. I saw no reason to reproduce the same picture again when we both agree shows no reaction on Connally’s face.

I do edit responses, particularly pictures out, to keep the screen from being too cluttered. If I had disagreed with your assessment of z223, and claimed it did show a reaction on Connally’s face, I should have and would have shown the picture again so others and judge if you were right or I. But since we agree on the picture, I saw no need to show it once again.

I also like to break up others response, to make it clear exactly what paragraph, or even what sentence, I am responding to. This can be hard to tell in original posts that are more than a screen wide. To get the total context of what the original post was saying, viewers can easily go back to the original post which can be found easily, because I preserve the date and time of that post.



The jacket bulging is an instantaneous mechanical response to an impact. You talk about tests where the bullet passes straight through the jacket which then moves 100 milliseconds later. It is all based on the assumption that the bullet passed cleanly through the jacket. In your earlier post you claim the jacket is moved by the 'debris' that exits Connally's chest. So you are claiming the bullet passes through Connally and the jacket after which the 'debris' waits for 100 milliseconds before exiting:

The ‘debris did not wait for 100 milliseconds. It came flying out of the chest. Let’s speculate say the debris was going at 100 feet per second and travelled three inches before it struck the coat. That would take 2 to 3 milliseconds. For all practical purposes, striking the coat at 0/30 seconds after impact. Unlike the much faster moving bullet, the debris bounces off the coat, transferring its momentum to the coat, which over the next 100 milliseconds swings forward to its near maximum movement.

My claim that the bullet passed cleanly through the coat without pushing it much, is based on the real-world test conducted by Dr. Lattimer. If it was the slowed down bullet which pushed the coat, then the coat would have been observed to bulge at 0/30 of a second after impact, because the bullet struck the coat at 0/30 of a second after impact and did not bounce off. The velocity of the bullet at the time it impacted the wrist is estimated by ballistic expert Larry Sturdivan as 500 feet per second and was at least that fast when it passed through the coat. This sounds fast enough to slice through without transferring too much momentum.

I agree that it is speculation by Dr. Lattimer that it was the bone fragments and debris that moved the jacket, but it is reasonable speculation. The jacket did not move when the “Connally” model was shot without the “Kennedy” model, when the bullet travelled straight and little debris was ejected from the rib cage. But it did when the “Kennedy” model was also used, and large bone fragments were sent flying out of the rib cage. These caused large irregular holes in the model shirt, just as it did in Connally’s. It seems this debris is needed to move the coat several inches.

In any case, the bottom line is, the coat reached its maximum bulge after 3/30 of a second, not 0/30. It doesn’t matter why the coat moves, the key fact is that the coat is at, or very near, its maximum forward movement 100 milliseconds after impact.

Your armchair assumption that the coat would bulge 0 milliseconds after impact, so the bullet hit at z224, is no more valid that someone else’s armchair assumption that the bulge would occur 225 milliseconds after impact so the bullet hit 4 frames earlier at z220.

So, until some new real-world tests are run, like Dr. Lattimer’s, that comes up with a different result, frame 222 has to be considered the best estimate of when the bullet struck both men, at least for those who are guided by real-world tests.


Question: Do you see the corner you've painted yourself into?

I'm not saying you do, but if anyone believes CE 399 shattered Connally's wrist bone, the thick end of the radius, and came out looking like it did is suffering from 'Magical Thinking'. I accept that some kind of miraculous event may have possibly occurred but I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket. At the moment my intuition is telling me the bullet that passed through JFK and then shattered Connally's rib had lost enough momentum to have difficulty getting through Connally's jacket, causing it to bulge on contact - z224. I need to go to dodgytesting.com to find something that corroborates my hunch.

No, I have not painted myself into a corner. Millions of laymen who don’t conduct ballistic experiments have trouble believing CE-399 could have caused those wounds and ended up in fairly good shape. But ballistic experts like Larry Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag, who conduct and are guided by real-world ballistic experiments have no problem believing this.

When I start using the opinions of the majority, who do not conduct scientific tests and ignore the opinion of experts who do run such tests and form their opinions based on them, then I’ll start questioning if CE-399 could have caused those wounds. And maybe start believing in Scientific Creationism.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 13, 2020, 07:31:30 PM
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
 
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just  transversed).  I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move.  The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.

Exactly right. The coat starts to move as a result of the debris that hits it at z222. The right side of the coat is much heavier than the bullet. It is much heavier than the debris that bounces off it. So, it does not start moving with the speed of the bullet, or even the speed of the debris, but a much slower speed of maybe 3 mph, roughly. It starts moving at z222 and reaches its maximum forward movement by z224.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 13, 2020, 07:43:35 PM
ass arse
Sounds like a pirate... Arrrrrrgse....it's a Tyranno-sore-arse
Quote
LN = Lone nutter = Oswald did it alone
Here I thought the nutters were the ones who believe that.
Quote
CT = Conspiracy Theorists = AnyBodyButOswald = A gazillion conspiracy theories
It was a cover-up and that is no theory.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 13, 2020, 07:55:26 PM
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
 
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just  transversed).  I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move.  The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.

The right jacket area looked fully extended at z224, so if that is the result of the bullet’s imparted velocity on mass movement (chest debris or the jacket itself), the bullet transiting was a bit earlier.

The jacket may have been in its initial stages of motion as early as z223, but the displacement not quite great enough yet to readily pick out.

Of course this dynamic has been argued as speculative, but there is one other piece I observed that appears to be relevant or possibly supportive.

2 frames before the full jacket displacement at z224, at z222, I see the cuff of Connally’s white shirt of his right arm just a bit out from his suit jacket sleeve, visible just above the edge of the limo as his hand holds his hat.

In less than or equal to 55 ms, at z223, it appears to have been be driven down, totally out of view.

In the next frame at z224 the jacket flip becomes maximally visible. If his right wrist was struck violently in a downward manner by a bullet, might one expect the wrist to disappear from view in a manner like this very quickly?  If a bullet hit the wrist and drove it out of view between 222 and 223, the shot may actually have been triggered around z219 with the bullet approaching the limo ~z221?

I can buy your reasoning abut a strike at z223, a solid argument. Not sure I can see the cuff movement but I may need better quality frames.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 13, 2020, 07:59:50 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZVYkjS8/bullets-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 15, 2020, 09:41:39 PM
Just a couple of comments I have on the jacket movement/shot timing.
 
Effectively what I think may have happened in such a scenario is any exiting chest debris as well as the jacket itself was immediately imparted with velocity as the bullet penetrated, but at a much slower velocity than the bullet (it doesn’t pick up near the full velocity of the bullet that just  transversed).  I don’t think it would wait for a while and then move.  The displacement as seen on film could be a function of the impacted material velocity, and how far it moved in one frame at its resultant velocity, and then the ability of the film/camera angle to show incremental position at resultant speed in one frame.

The right jacket area looked fully extended at z224, so if that is the result of the bullet’s imparted velocity on mass movement (chest debris or the jacket itself), the bullet transiting was a bit earlier.

The jacket may have been in its initial stages of motion as early as z223, but the displacement not quite great enough yet to readily pick out.

Of course this dynamic has been argued as speculative, but there is one other piece I observed that appears to be relevant or possibly supportive.

2 frames before the full jacket displacement at z224, at z222, I see the cuff of Connally’s white shirt of his right arm just a bit out from his suit jacket sleeve, visible just above the edge of the limo as his hand holds his hat.

In less than or equal to 55 ms, at z223, it appears to have been be driven down, totally out of view.

In the next frame at z224 the jacket flip becomes maximally visible. If his right wrist was struck violently in a downward manner by a bullet, might one expect the wrist to disappear from view in a manner like this very quickly?  If a bullet hit the wrist and drove it out of view between 222 and 223, the shot may actually have been triggered around z219 with the bullet approaching the limo ~z221?

Just a quick response to this earlier post. I wasn't sure about the part about JBC's wrist injury because I couldn't get a good close-up clip at the time but anoter member posted this on a different thread:

(https://i.postimg.cc/9X1CGQpN/JFK-JBC-react-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

I can now see exactly what you're saying - JBC's white cuff is clearly visible in z222 then suddenly disappears in z223, the moment of impact. His wrist seems forced down then rebounds up slightly and by the end of the clip his hand is bent over in quite a strange way that may indicate it is no longer getting any support from the wrist. I originally thought the fact he was still holding on to his Stetson was significant but this could easily be an involuntary response to the wrist damage (I just need to look at the way JFK's hands are balled into fists to see it's possible)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Brian Roselle on July 15, 2020, 10:41:15 PM
Dan, yes that’s it, good eye.  I saw it on some MPI frames but it is on this gif as well.

The cuff disappears down the same time the orientation of his hat starts changing around, presumably following the wrist/hand motion.
 
To me it looks like the wrist was driven down after aperture closure of z222 and before it opened for frame z223.

I agree his wrist orientation a few frames later looks weird. I had heard he held the hat all the way to Parkland. Perhaps wrist strength/flexure and finger grasping strength/flexure are different enough to allow a finger grasp to exist after wrist damage.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 15, 2020, 11:36:53 PM
Dan, yes that’s it, good eye.  I saw it on some MPI frames but it is on this gif as well.

The cuff disappears down the same time the orientation of his hat starts changing around, presumably following the wrist/hand motion.
 
To me it looks like the wrist was driven down after aperture closure of z222 and before it opened for frame z223.

I agree his wrist orientation a few frames later looks weird. I had heard he held the hat all the way to Parkland. Perhaps wrist strength/flexure and finger grasping strength/flexure are different enough to allow a finger grasp to exist after wrist damage.

Kudos to you.

It's crazy how that one small observation ties it all together. JBC's right shoulder being pulled forward and slightly down, possibly from the energy of the wrist impact.

The SBT is alive and well

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 16, 2020, 01:51:58 AM

Dan, yes that’s it, good eye.  I saw it on some MPI frames but it is on this gif as well.

The cuff disappears down the same time the orientation of his hat starts changing around, presumably following the wrist/hand motion.
 
To me it looks like the wrist was driven down after aperture closure of z222 and before it opened for frame z223.

I agree his wrist orientation a few frames later looks weird. I had heard he held the hat all the way to Parkland. Perhaps wrist strength/flexure and finger grasping strength/flexure are different enough to allow a finger grasp to exist after wrist damage.

This is correct. In the book “The JFK Myths” Larry Sturdivan explains that the bullet shattered only one of the two forearm bones, the radius, but not the other bone, the ulna.  One nerve was cut, but it was a sensory nerve, not a motor control nerve, so he was still capable of holding the hat, and is seen still holding his hat just after the head shot at z312 when a few frames later the wrist and the hat drop below view. But his wife said he held onto the hat all the way to the hospital.

So, I would suspect he would not have been able to hold up a bowling ball but keeping a grip on the hat was no problem.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 16, 2020, 10:36:42 PM
Two other long-known facts should be mentioned:

* The Harper Fragment is occipital bone. Dr. Mantik was able to establish this a few years ago ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," pp. 9-10, 67-70, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf). This proves that the autopsy photos that show the back of the head intact have been altered. The FBI or Dr. Burkley "lost" the Harper Fragment, but, luckily, some photos were taken of it in Dallas. The only doctors who actually handled the Harper Fragment, including the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, said it was occipital bone. Dr. Mantik interviewed one of those doctors, Dr. Noteboom, who confirmed that it came from the occiput:

Quote
Harper took it to his uncle, Jack C. Harper, M.D., who in turn showed it to A.B. Cairns, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital. A total of three Dallas pathologists examined the bone and they identified the site of origin as the occiput. (On 22 November 1992, on a Palm Springs radio talk show, I helped to interview one of these pathologists, Dr. Gerhard Noteboom, who reaffirmed that conclusion; he also recalled the lead deposit on the fragment.)  ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," p. 67).

The WC and the HSCA FPP would not acknowledge that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone because (1) missing occipital bone indicates a shot from the front, and (2) a sizable defect in the occiput proves that all but one of the autopsy photos of the back of the head have been altered.

* Jackie Kennedy saw a piece of JFK's skull [or brain] blown onto the trunk of the limousine, and that's why she started crawling on the trunk. Clint Hill, who got an up-close look at Kennedy's skull in the limo, said there was a large defect in the right-rear part of his skull. Agent Hill saw this wound again when he was asked to view the body to record the locations of the wounds. In her WC testimony, Jackie explained that she was trying to hold the back of JFK's head together, but that part of her testimony was omitted in the published version--it came to light years later.

Of course, literally dozens of witnesses who saw Kennedy's body in Dealey Plaza and/or at Parkland Hospital and/or at Bethesda Naval Hospital said there was a large wound in the back of the head, on the right side of the back of the head. Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who helped prepare the body for placement in the casket, described this wound, as did Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for burial after the autopsy. A number of these witnesses drew diagrams of the large rear head wound for the HSCA or the ARRB, and, thanks to the ARRB, we now have those diagrams:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

Dr. Michael Chesser has confirmed Dr. Mantik's optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which, among other things, prove that the right-rear defect in the skull has been patched on the autopsy skull x-rays in an attempt to conceal its existence (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/). When the x-rays were altered, no one knew that in future years technology would enable experts to detect the patching.

Dr. Mantik has examined the autopsy materials nine times at the National Archives. Here is one summary of his findings in which he discusses his optical density measurements and the hard scientific evidence that the x-rays have been altered: https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 17, 2020, 07:53:55 AM
Two other long-known facts should be mentioned:

* The Harper Fragment is occipital bone. Dr. Mantik was able to establish this a few years ago ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," pp. 9-10, 67-70, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf). This proves that the autopsy photos that show the back of the head intact have been altered. The FBI or Dr. Burkley "lost" the Harper Fragment, but, luckily, some photos were taken of it in Dallas. The only doctors who actually handled the Harper Fragment, including the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, said it was occipital bone. Dr. Mantik interviewed one of those doctors, Dr. Noteboom, who confirmed that it came from the occiput:

The WC and the HSCA FPP would not acknowledge that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone because (1) missing occipital bone indicates a shot from the front, and (2) a sizable defect in the occiput proves that all but one of the autopsy photos of the back of the head have been altered.

* Jackie Kennedy saw a piece of JFK's skull blown onto the trunk of the limousine, and that's why she started crawling on the trunk. Clint Hill, who got an up-close look at Kennedy's skull in the limo, said there was a large defect in the right-rear part of his skull. Agent Hill saw this wound again when he was asked to view the body to record the locations of the wounds. In her WC testimony, Jackie explained that she was trying to hold the back of JFK's head together, but that part of her testimony was omitted in the published version--it came to light years later.

Of course, literally dozens of witnesses who saw Kennedy's body in Dealey Plaza and/or at Parkland Hospital and/or at Bethesda Naval Hospital said there was a large wound in the back of the head, on the right side of the back of the head. Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who helped prepare the body for placement in the casket, described this wound, as did Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for burial after the autopsy. A number of these witnesses drew diagrams of the large rear head wound for the HSCA or the ARRB, and, thanks to the ARRB, we now have those diagrams:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

Dr. Michael Chesser has confirmed Dr. Mantik's optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which, among other things, prove that the right-rear defect in the skull has been patched on the autopsy skull x-rays in an attempt to conceal its existence (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/). When the x-rays were altered, no one knew that in future years technology would enable experts to detect the patching.

Dr. Mantik has examined the autopsy materials nine times at the National Archives. Here is one summary of his findings in which he discusses his optical density measurements and the hard scientific evidence that the x-rays have been altered: https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf


https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120a.htm

"The Harper fragment photographs show it as a roughly trapezoidal piece, 7 centimeters by 5.5 centimeters in size, coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Near its short upper edge vascular foramina on the inside and a faint irregular line on the outside indicate saggital suture. Its posterior inferior pointed edge appears to fit the crack in the posterior section of the right parietal [bone] and its slightly wavy lower border can fit the upper edge of the loose lower section of right parietal [bone]. Its upper short border, on the left of the midline near vertex, may meet the left margin of the gap. Behind it there appears to be a large gap and in front a narrow one." -- Dr. J. Lawrence Angel
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 17, 2020, 03:21:51 PM
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120a.htm

"The Harper fragment photographs show it as a roughly trapezoidal piece, 7 centimeters by 5.5 centimeters in size, coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Near its short upper edge vascular foramina on the inside and a faint irregular line on the outside indicate saggital suture. Its posterior inferior pointed edge appears to fit the crack in the posterior section of the right parietal [bone] and its slightly wavy lower border can fit the upper edge of the loose lower section of right parietal [bone]. Its upper short border, on the left of the midline near vertex, may meet the left margin of the gap. Behind it there appears to be a large gap and in front a narrow one." -- Dr. J. Lawrence Angel

Apparently you didn't bother to read any of the links I provided. Dr. Mantik deals with Dr. Angel's analysis of the Harper Fragment in his long article "The Medical Evidence Decoded." Why don't you read Dr. Mantik's section on the Harper Fragment and then deal with the evidence he cites for its being occipital bone?

And I notice you just brushed aside the fact that the consensus of the doctors who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment, including one who was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas (Dr. Cairns), said the fragment was occipital bone. These doctors got to handle the fragment and examine it up-close.

I also notice you ignored all the eyewitness accounts, some of which include diagrams, that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, which, of course, includes the occiput.

I further notice that you did not address the optical density measurements that prove that someone attempted to conceal the large right-rear wound in the autopsy skull x-rays by putting a graphical patch over it.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2020, 01:36:58 AM
Apparently you didn't bother to read any of the links I provided. Dr. Mantik deals with Dr. Angel's bogus analysis of the Harper Fragment in his long article "The Medical Evidence Decoded." Why don't you read Dr. Mantik's section on the Harper Fragment and then deal with the evidence he cites for its being occipital bone?

And I notice you just brushed aside the fact that the consensus of the doctors who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment, including one who was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas (Dr. Cairns), said the fragment was occipital bone. These doctors got to handle the fragment and examine it up-close.

I also notice you ignored all the eyewitness accounts, some of which include diagrams, that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, which, of course, includes the occiput.

I further notice that you did not address the optical density measurements that prove that someone attempted to conceal the large right-rear wound in the autopsy skull x-rays by putting a graphical patch over it.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm



Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 18, 2020, 01:22:56 PM
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

If you could muster up the courage to read Dr. Mantik's analysis of the Harper fragment, you would discover that he answers the arguments presented in the two articles you cited, especially Dr. Riley's arguments. Here's the link to his article again, for your convenience:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf

Dr. Mantik provides diagrams relating to the fragment on pages 9 and 10, and his discussion on the fragment begins on page 67.

One of Dr. Mantik's other articles on the Harper fragment is "The Harper Fragment Revisited" (2014). Here is a portion of what Dr. Mantik says in the article:


Quote
Most reconstructions (especially the parietal ones) with HF [Harper fragment] place the metallic smear near an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside.[9] That seems odd, because an entry site should normally lie on the outside. By citing "inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull,"[10] Cairns must have meant either (1) vascular grooves (i.e., grooves in occipital bone; in gross disagreement with Riley), or (2) the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus (which would, by definition, mean occipital bone). Riley did not address Cairns's provocative challenge to his conclusion. Likewise, Riley did not deal with Cairns' comment that HF suggested an entry wound. On the other hand, if HF had been parietal bone, then this smear would have lain near the skull vertex (Figure 3). Since an entry site near the vertex seems unlikely (to nearly everyone),[11] Riley would seem to regard the metallic smear as an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside, and even though there is no smear on the inside. The HSCA took the same curious approach (see below). . . .

The HSCA did address HF and did propose a skull reconstruction. In fact, since Michael Baden, M.D., and J. Lawrence Angel, Ph.D., disagreed with one another, the HSCA offered two contradictory reconstructions.[14] However, neither opinion supported an occipital origin for HF.[15] Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution, after viewing the photographs (the HSCA did not view the HF X-ray), described it as roughly trapezoidal, 7 x 5.5 cm, and coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Angel saw a suture line inside of HF, which he identified as part of the sagittal suture (Figure 3).[16] That he saw a suture line is interesting; in particular, he thereby corroborated Cairns's recollection of a "suture." In his reconstruction, however, Angel left a gap between HF and the triangular fragment[17] (the latter is red in Figure 3); according to Angel, one edge of the triangular fragment comprised part of the coronal suture; and he placed that fragment anterior to that suture. . . .

Another analysis was offered by Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., who is an expert in neuroanatomy. His brief paper[23] concluded that HF was right parietal, thereby agreeing with Angel (and with the HSCA). Riley emphasized two generic features of skull bones: (1) vascular grooves and (2) parietal foramina. The foramina are tiny holes (like dark dimples) in the bone that transmit blood vessels perpendicular to the skull surface. The grooves are shallow linear indentations that carry blood vessels parallel to the surface; Riley claimed that these two features are characteristic of parietal bone, but that "...occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving." Riley also asserted that foramina occurred "...only in parietal bone." (Based on a survey of many anatomy textbooks, and on my authentic human skull, these two arguments are both refuted below.) Riley noted an additional feature that, in his opinion, excluded an occipital site: the absence of deep grooves on HF for two specific, large blood vessels (the transverse sinus and the superior sagittal sinus). However, since the transverse sinus is from the lower occiput, that identification is quite irrelevant. That is because, in my reconstruction, HF is from the upper occiput (as I argue further below).

But the sulcus (or groove) for the superior sagittal sinus may actually be visible on HF (Figures 1 and 30B). Riley did not specifically address that possibility. Finally, Riley emphasized that parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness; all of which he saw in HF. However, he did not address the likelihood that the Dallas pathologists [Cairns, Noteboom, and Harper] were keenly aware of all of these issues. I would also emphasize that they had a major advantage over subsequent observers (including Riley). After all, they could see, in three dimensions, the authentic curvature of the bone itself and did not need to speculate from photographs.

But what images did Riley employ in his analysis? He stated that he had obtained copies of the HF photographs from Mary Ferrell,[24] which permitted him to reach one fundamental conclusion. According to Riley, his photographs (supposedly taken by Cairns) matched those used by the HSCA, thus ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity. More importantly though, via many anatomy citations, we shall refute Riley's two key opinions. (http://www.patspeer.com/rare-files)

As I have noted, the fact that the Harper fragment is occipital bone corresponds with the numerous eyewitness accounts from people who saw a large wound in the right-rear part of Kennedy's head. Some of those witnesses drew diagrams of the wound for the HSCA and/or the ARRB, and, as I've pointed out, we now have those diagrams. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who prepared the body for burial after the autopsy. Needless to say, Robinson got a long, hands-on look at the large head wound.

Finally, you might also read Dr. Michael Chesser's discussion on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered partly in an attempt to conceal the right-rear exit wound. Dr. Chesser specializes in neurology and neurophysiology. Here is the PDF version of his copiously illustrated presentation:


https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

Another medical doctor who has found evidence of tampering in the autopsy materials is Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has been allowed to examine the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives. Here is one of Dr. Aguilar's articles on evidence of tampering in the autopsy materials:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171114031943/http://www.jfkhistory.com/aguilar.html




Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 18, 2020, 03:39:05 PM
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
From that article...
Quote
Billy Harper, who discovered the piece of bone when he was in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd taking pictures, took the fragment to his uncle, a Dr. Jack C. Harper, and Dr. Harper took the bone to Methodist Hospital where is was examined by Dr. A. B. Cairns, who was chief pathologist. Cairns opinion was that "the bone specimen looked like it came from the occipital region of the skull." Conspiracy interpretation of source of Harper fragment

Conspiracy books ever since have quoted Cairns, and used his assessment as evidence of a frontal shot exiting the rear of the head. Author Josiah Thompson, in Six Seconds in Dallas, after citing Cairns, notes that:

    It is difficult to understand how a shot from the rear could drive a piece of the occipital bone 25 feet to the left of the vehicles's path. It is not so difficult to understand how a shot from the right front exploding through the rear of the skull could produce precisely that effect. (p. 101)

A graphic from Robert Groden's book The Killing of a President (right) shows a typical conspiracist interpretation of the fragment.

But suppose Cairns was wrong? The Warren Commission failed to deal with this issue. However by 1977, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations began its work, the existence of the bone and its possible importance were well-known. The Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel studied the two photos of the fragment made at Methodist Hospital (Warren Commission Document 1395).
But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 18, 2020, 07:16:02 PM
From that article...But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.

And it should be noted that we from WC FBI files that the FBI interviewed Dr. Cairns and that he had told the FBI that the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

The WC did not ignore Craig's or Kantor's statements. They essentially accused Craig of lying and said Kantor was mistaken. They took Jack Ruby's word over Kantor's!
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 18, 2020, 09:53:51 PM
The WC did not ignore Craig's or Kantor's statements. They essentially accused Craig of lying and said Kantor was mistaken. They took Jack Ruby's word over Kantor's!
Neither one is mentioned in the final Report ...neither is Arnold.
Ruby just told the WC that he was not at Parkland. He merely responds 'no' to nearly 90 questions--
 https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-17.html
Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 19, 2020, 12:41:32 AM
From that article...But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.

Why suppose that Cairns was correct when we know for a fact that he was not? Not only do we have the autopsy report that tells us that he was incorrect, we have the autopsy photos, autopsy X-Rays, and the Zapruder film that we can view for ourselves. We also have the fact the the fragment was found well ahead of where the limo was at the time of the head shot. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/harpermap.gif)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 19, 2020, 12:45:58 AM
Neither one is mentioned in the final Report ...neither is Arnold.

The WC allowed Roger Craig to testify (6 H 260-273), but it rejected his account. Decker falsely claimed that Craig was never in the office with Oswald and never spoke with Oswald.

Ruby just told the WC that he was not at Parkland. He merely responds 'no' to nearly 90 questions--
 https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-17.html


The WC allowed Kantor to testify (15 H 84-96), but it accepted Ruby's denial about being at Parkland Hospital on 11/22.
 
Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.

Yeap, WC apologists have been doing that for a long time. [/size]
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 19, 2020, 12:50:31 AM

The WC allowed Roger Craig to testify (6 H 260-273), but it rejected his account. Decker falsely claimed that Craig was never in the office with Oswald and never spoke with Oswald.

When did Decker make that claim and whose office was he referring to?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 19, 2020, 12:53:34 AM

Quote from: Jerry Freeman on July 18, 2020, 09:53:51 PM
Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.
 
Yeap, WC apologists have been doing that for a long time.

Didn't you just call Decker a liar?  Although, I think you are confusing Decker with Fritz. So, you're calling Fritz a liar.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 19, 2020, 01:34:31 AM
Why suppose that Cairns was correct

Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.

I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Are you ever going to deal with the fact that Dr. Riley based his interpretation of the Harper fragment on the mistaken belief that occipital bone does not contain vascular grooves or foramina?

when we know for a fact that he was not?

You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.

Not only do we have the autopsy report that tells us that he was incorrect,

LOL!!!  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays?  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone?  The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. Dr. John Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist hired by the ARRB, told the ARRB that the skull x-rays show significant frontal bone missing. And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing.

By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.


You see, if the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing, then the autopsy photos that show JFK's face cannot be authentic.

Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.

we have the autopsy photos, autopsy X-Rays,

You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?

Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?


and the Zapruder film that we can view for ourselves.

The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.

We also have the fact the the fragment was found well ahead of where the limo was at the time of the head shot. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/harpermap.gif)

Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on July 19, 2020, 01:56:32 AM

Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.

I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited."

You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.

LOL!!!  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays?  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone?  The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. (And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone.)

By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.


Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.

You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?

Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?


The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.

Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.


Dear Mike T. Griffith,

Why do you call McAdams a "pseudo research site"?

When it comes to the JFK assassination, how do you define "research," anyway?

How about compiling facts that other people have already researched and proved, and sharing them in a comprehensive way?

How about rebutting tinfoil conspiracy theories?  Isn't that worthwile?

Do you consider yourself a "JFK assassination researcher"?

How so?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 19, 2020, 02:04:38 AM
Dear Mike T. Griffith,

Why do you call McAdams a "pseudo research site"?

When it comes to the JFK assassination, how do you define "research," anyway?

How about compiling facts that other people have already researched and proved, and sharing them in a comprehensive way?

How about rebutting tinfoil conspiracy theories?  Isn't that worthwile?

Do you consider yourself a "JFK assassination researcher"?

How so?

--  MWT  ;)

So you're just going to ignore all the evidence that I presented and resort to ad hominem attacks?  I am guessing that you made no effort to answer a single point that I made because you don't know how to answer any of them.

I am also guessing that you, like Nickerson, simply refuse to read any of the scholarly scientific studies on the Harper fragment and on the autopsy photos and x-rays that show that the Harper fragment was occipital bone and that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered--and that the autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves (e.g., the intact frontal area on the autopsy photos that show the face vs. the autopsy x-rays that show frontal bone missing--not just damaged, but missing.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on July 19, 2020, 02:09:01 AM
So you're just going to ignore all the evidence that I presented and resort to ad hominem attacks?  I am guessing that you made no effort to answer a single point that I made because you don't know how to answer any of them.

I am also guessing that you, like Nickerson, simply refuse to read any of the scholarly scientific studies on the Harper fragment and on the autopsy photos and x-rays that show that the Harper fragment was occipital bone and that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered--and that the autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves (e.g., the intact frontal area on the autopsy photos that show the face vs. the autopsy x-rays that show frontal bone missing--not just damaged, but missing.


Oh, you poor rhetorical thing, you.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 19, 2020, 02:20:40 AM
Oh, you poor rhetorical thing, you.

--  MWT  ;)

I'm not the one ducking and dodging. You did not even try to answer a single fact that I presented, and you obviously have no interest in reading both sides of the issue. You will only read sources that you know will support what you already want to believe.

By the way, you asked me about my negative view of McAdams' website. Here is article on the subject that I wrote in 2012:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/vsmcadams.htm
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 19, 2020, 02:23:57 AM

Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.

I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Are you ever going to deal with the fact that Dr. Riley based his interpretation of the Harper fragment on the mistaken belief that occipital bone does not contain vascular grooves or foramina?

Who were the other two pathologists. Mantik hasn't established that it was occipital bone. No credible radiologists and pathologists take him seriously.

Quote
You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.

I've read the autopsy report and the numerous statements and testimonies of the Bethesda pathologists. I've seen the available autopsy photos and X-Rays. I've viewed the Zapruder film too may times to count. I know without any doubt whatsoever that it was not occipital bone.

Quote
LOL!!!  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays?  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone?  The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. Dr. John Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist hired by the ARRB, told the ARRB that the skull x-rays show significant frontal bone missing. And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing.

By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.


You see, if the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing, then the autopsy photos that show JFK's face cannot be authentic.

Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.

You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?

The "6.5 mm" fragment isn't mentioned in the autopsy report but Humes talked about it in his WC testimony. He referred to it as "a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye". As far as frontal bone being missing, you're going to have to be more specific. What part of the frontal bone was missing and how much?  The only frontal damage to the head was above the right eye , where the bullet exited.

Quote
Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?

Witnesses who reported seeing a large wound in the back of the head were mistaken. The autopsy photos, X-Rays, and the Zapruder film do not lie.

Quote
The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.

What we see in the Zapruder film is also seen in the autopsy photos. I don't know what you mean by round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible.

Quote
Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.


I'm sorry, who is it that you don't believe? Millicent Cranor or William Harper? Or perhaps both?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf

"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54

54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13.
1997

(https://i.imgur.com/xvP4Tuq.gif)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 19, 2020, 03:53:02 AM
Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head. [/size]

The following quotes are from Jackie.

“I tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in,” she said. “But I knew he was dead.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/john-f-kennedy-lay-dying-2670122

"All the ride to the hospital I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me? I love you Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains in."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12287773

Here's Clint specifically pointing out what he saw.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kc12CBhd/Clintshowem.gif)

And here are some of the closest civilian eyewitnesses who were all interviewed just an hour or two later and all describe what they saw and not surprisingly they perfectly describe what we see in the Zapruder film.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Vsx3ThRC/gayle-newman-wfaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/6pbsHp19/zapruder-wfaatv.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qBx5b7z9/bill-newman-wfaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/s2yrQN8W/bill-newman-head-wound.gif)

Btw if you rely on kinetic energy of a bullet making all the movement, how does an exit wound on the back right of JFK's head translate to Kennedy's back and to the left, which is the opposite direction?

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 19, 2020, 05:55:27 AM

I was thinking lately of CTers skillful use of terminology to mislead and the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” is an excellent example of such.

When you hear the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap”, everyone thinks about the backwards motion of the head. Never the forward motion.

This is curious. The fastest motion was forward. Between z312 and z313, the head moved forward with an average speed of 2.2 mph. The fastest backwards motion was a speed of only 1.7 mph between z317 and z318.

Also, the head reached its maximum forward speed during 55 milliseconds. It took 220 milliseconds or more for the head to reach its maximum backwards speed.

Even through the forward motion was faster and much “snapper” than the backward motion, in the mind of most Americans the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” only means the backward motion. A prime example of the power of the repetitive lie which some people are not ashamed to use over and over again.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 19, 2020, 09:48:51 AM

Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays? 

Upon reviewing the autopsy report, I have to say that I was mistaken in agreeing with you that there is no mention of the "6.5 mm" fragment in it.

"Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.”


https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md3/html/Image4.htm

The 7 x 2 mm fragment is the "rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" that Humes refers to in his WC testimony.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 19, 2020, 04:32:11 PM
I was thinking lately of CTers skillful use of terminology to mislead and the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” is an excellent example of such.

When you hear the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap”, everyone thinks about the backwards motion of the head. Never the forward motion.

This is curious. The fastest motion was forward. Between z312 and z313, the head moved forward with an average speed of 2.2 mph. The fastest backwards motion was a speed of only 1.7 mph between z317 and z318.

Also, the head reached its maximum forward speed during 55 milliseconds. It took 220 milliseconds or more for the head to reach its maximum backwards speed.

Even through the forward motion was faster and much “snapper” than the backward motion, in the mind of most Americans the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” only means the backward motion. A prime example of the power of the repetitive lie which some people are not ashamed to use over and over again.

Pure head snap demo, aside from exploding heads etc
Watch the guys in the third boat

Not a valid vimeo URL
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 19, 2020, 04:38:20 PM
Who were the other two pathologists.

Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.

Mantik hasn't established that it was occipital bone.

Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:

Quote
Most reconstructions (especially the parietal ones) with HF [Harper fragment] place the metallic smear near an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside.[9] That seems odd, because an entry site should normally lie on the outside. By citing "inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull,"[10] Cairns must have meant either (1) vascular grooves (i.e., grooves in occipital bone; in gross disagreement with Riley), or (2) the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus (which would, by definition, mean occipital bone). Riley did not address Cairns's provocative challenge to his conclusion. Likewise, Riley did not deal with Cairns' comment that HF suggested an entry wound. On the other hand, if HF had been parietal bone, then this smear would have lain near the skull vertex (Figure 3). Since an entry site near the vertex seems unlikely (to nearly everyone),[11] Riley would seem to regard the metallic smear as an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside, and even though there is no smear on the inside. The HSCA took the same curious approach (see below). . . .

The HSCA did address HF and did propose a skull reconstruction. In fact, since Michael Baden, M.D., and J. Lawrence Angel, Ph.D., disagreed with one another, the HSCA offered two contradictory reconstructions.[14] However, neither opinion supported an occipital origin for HF.[15] Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution, after viewing the photographs (the HSCA did not view the HF X-ray), described it as roughly trapezoidal, 7 x 5.5 cm, and coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Angel saw a suture line inside of HF, which he identified as part of the sagittal suture (Figure 3).[16] That he saw a suture line is interesting; in particular, he thereby corroborated Cairns's recollection of a "suture." In his reconstruction, however, Angel left a gap between HF and the triangular fragment[17] (the latter is red in Figure 3); according to Angel, one edge of the triangular fragment comprised part of the coronal suture; and he placed that fragment anterior to that suture. . . .

Another analysis was offered by Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., who is an expert in neuroanatomy. His brief paper[23] concluded that HF was right parietal, thereby agreeing with Angel (and with the HSCA). Riley emphasized two generic features of skull bones: (1) vascular grooves and (2) parietal foramina. The foramina are tiny holes (like dark dimples) in the bone that transmit blood vessels perpendicular to the skull surface. The grooves are shallow linear indentations that carry blood vessels parallel to the surface; Riley claimed that these two features are characteristic of parietal bone, but that "...occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving." Riley also asserted that foramina occurred "...only in parietal bone." (Based on a survey of many anatomy textbooks, and on my authentic human skull, these two arguments are both refuted below.) Riley noted an additional feature that, in his opinion, excluded an occipital site: the absence of deep grooves on HF for two specific, large blood vessels (the transverse sinus and the superior sagittal sinus). However, since the transverse sinus is from the lower occiput, that identification is quite irrelevant. That is because, in my reconstruction, HF is from the upper occiput (as I argue further below).

But the sulcus (or groove) for the superior sagittal sinus may actually be visible on HF (Figures 1 and 30B). Riley did not specifically address that possibility. Finally, Riley emphasized that parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness; all of which he saw in HF. However, he did not address the likelihood that the Dallas pathologists [Cairns, Noteboom, and Harper] were keenly aware of all of these issues. I would also emphasize that they had a major advantage over subsequent observers (including Riley). After all, they could see, in three dimensions, the authentic curvature of the bone itself and did not need to speculate from photographs.

But what images did Riley employ in his analysis? He stated that he had obtained copies of the HF photographs from Mary Ferrell,[24] which permitted him to reach one fundamental conclusion. According to Riley, his photographs (supposedly taken by Cairns) matched those used by the HSCA, thus ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity. More importantly though, via many anatomy citations, we shall refute Riley's two key opinions. (http://www.patspeer.com/rare-files)


No credible radiologists and pathologists take him seriously.

You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.

I've read the autopsy report and the numerous statements and testimonies of the Bethesda pathologists. I've seen the available autopsy photos and X-Rays. I've viewed the Zapruder film too may times to count. I know without any doubt whatsoever that it was not occipital bone.

Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! So you just don't care that the only three pathologists who were able to actually examine the fragment up close and with their own hands, the only three pathologists who did not need to guess about the fragment's contour and curvature--all three of those pathologists, one of whom was a chief pathologist, said it was occipital bone. Nah, never mind all that, because, well, you've read the autopsy report and have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays and the Zapruder film!

The "6.5 mm" fragment isn't mentioned in the autopsy report but Humes talked about it in his WC testimony. He referred to it as "a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye".

LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye."  It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.

And why oh why oh why would Humes have omitted from the autopsy report any mention one of the two largest fragments on the x-rays, a fragment that just happened to be 6.5 mm in size (gosh, what a coincidence!), if he had seen this fragment on the x-rays that he took and examined on the night of the autopsy? Why?

Are you ever going to address the scientific finding that the 6.5 mm fragment image was added to the x-rays, that it is clearly an artifact, as even the HSCA's Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged?


As far as frontal bone being missing, you're going to have to be more specific. What part of the frontal bone was missing and how much?

I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm


The only frontal damage to the head was above the right eye, where the bullet exited.

HUH???!!!  Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram).

Witnesses who reported seeing a large wound in the back of the head were mistaken.

Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?

It makes perfect sense that the trained, experienced mortician who prepared JFK's skull and the rest of his body for burial couldn't tell the difference between a large wound that included much of the occiput vs. a large wound several inches away above the right ear that left the occiput undamaged. It's just an amazing coincidence that Clint Hill, who saw this wound in the limo and again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head, the same part of the head that Jackie told the WC she was trying to hold together in the limo--and Hill went to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the locations of the wounds. And, needless to say, it's also an amazing coincidence that the Parkland nurse, Diana Bowron, who prepared Kennedy's body and who packed the large head wound with cotton gauze, said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head. She, too, just couldn't tell the difference between that wound and a wound several inches forward above the right ear. Just amazing.

The autopsy photos, X-Rays, and the Zapruder film do not lie.

So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?

What we see in the Zapruder film is also seen in the autopsy photos. I don't know what you mean by round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible.

Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.

I'm sorry, who is it that you don't believe? Millicent Cranor or William Harper? Or perhaps both?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf

"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54 54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13, 1997.

LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.

I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 19, 2020, 04:55:58 PM
Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.

Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:
 

You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.

Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! So you just don't care that the only three pathologists who were able to actually examine the fragment up close and with their own hands, the only three pathologists who did not need to guess about the fragment's contour and curvature--all three of those pathologists, one of whom was a chief pathologist, said it was occipital bone. Nah, never mind all that, because, well, you've read the autopsy report and have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays and the Zapruder film!

LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye."  It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.

I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm


HUH???!!!  Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram).

Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?

It makes perfect sense that the trained, experienced mortician who prepared JFK's skull and the rest of his body for burial couldn't tell the difference between a large wound that included much of the occiput vs. a large wound several inches away above the right ear that left the occiput undamaged. It's just an amazing coincidence that Clint Hill, who saw this wound in the limo and again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head, the same part of the head that Jackie told the WC she was trying to hold together in the limo--and Hill went to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the locations of the wounds. And, needless to say, it's also an amazing coincidence that the Parkland nurse, Diana Bowron, who prepared Kennedy's body and who packed the large head wound with cotton gauze, said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head. She, too, just couldn't tell the difference between that wound and a wound several inches forward above the right ear. Just amazing.

So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?

Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.

LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.

I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.


'Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible'.

What is plainly visible is the bright sunshine: Look at every head, body, object in that sunshine and get a clue.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 04:24:34 AM
Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.

You claim that Drs Notebloom and Harper were both pathologists but I've yet to find any bios or curriculum vitae's of theirs that shows what their specialties were. Also, where can we read their statements on the fragment?

Quote
Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:

Has not.

Quote
You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.

Oh come on. Mantik isn't even a radiologist. You slur Dr Lattimer as being a quack when that label is probably morely aptly applied to Mantik.

Quote
Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! !

You want to talk resumes? Have you seen the resumes of Roland Zavada, Dr. Randy Robertson, Harry C. Andrews, Richard J. Blackwell, Thomas N. Canning, Robert Chiralo, David B. Einsendrath, Ronald Francis, William K. Hartmann, Bob R. Hunt, Donald H. Janney, Ellis Kerley, Cecil W. Kirk, Charles J. Leontis, C.S. McCamy, Gerald M. McDonnel, Everett Merritt, Paul G. Roetling, Frank Scott, Robert H. Selzer, Bennet Sherman, Philip N. Slater, Clyde C. Snow, George W. Stroke, and Dr J. Lawrence Angel?

Quote
LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye."  It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.

And why oh why oh why would Humes have omitted from the autopsy report any mention one of the two largest fragments on the x-rays, a fragment that just happened to be 6.5 mm in size (gosh, what a coincidence!), if he had seen this fragment on the x-rays that he took and examined on the night of the autopsy? Why?

The 6.5 mm is "just above the right eye." And as I pointed out, Humes et al did not omit it from the autopsy report. It's the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment.

"Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.”

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md3/html/Image4.htm

Let's look at the following article by Mantik:

https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JFK-Autopsy-X-Rays-Mantik.pdf

It is copyrighted so I'll refrain from using his graphics. I'll just duplicate them myself. Looking at his first two images:

(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/6jOSTZz.png)

He maintains that the higher fragment, the one high in the forehead, is the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed. But zooming in on the lateral view we can see that that higher fragment looks to be imbedded in the frontal skull bone.  That effectively rules it out as being the larger one that Humes removed. From Humes' WC testimony;

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that fragment.
I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.


Quote
Are you ever going to address the scientific finding that the 6.5 mm fragment image was added to the x-rays, that it is clearly an artifact, as even the HSCA's Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged?[/size]

Sturdivan believes that the fragment was an artifact but he does not believe that it was added to the x-rays. He's wrong about it being an artifact.

Quote
I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm


It's by the late John Hunt. His stuff is hard to read because he was such an arrogant sort with very limited critical thinking ability.  I'll give it a read though.


Quote
size=10pt]HUH???!!!  Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram). [/size]

Well, the exit was considerably above the right eye. But above the right eye nevertheless.The HSCA FPP placed the exit where the parietal bone meets the frontal. There was no significant amount of frontal bone missing.

Quote
Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?

Many of them admitted that they had been mistaken. What about those who reported that there was no large wound in the back of the head? Including those who actually performed the forensic examination of the body. Were  they all mistaken?

Quote
So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.

I'm going with the hard scientific evidence. You're the one who is ignoring it. You are putting your faith in the opinion of a "wannabe radiologist" who is making absolute conclusions on things seen in x-rays that were never intended to be used for such. The X-Ray machine was even outdated at the time and it was only being used to try and locate any bullet(s) that might not have exited. The X-Rays are poor quality. They were not even near the best that the machine could produce. Custer and Reed must have been under considerable stress. So, one can forgive them for producing substandard images by even the standard of the piece of crap machine itself. Optical density measurements cannot be anywhere accurately made with those X-Rays.

Quote
I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?

Neither Boswell nor Finck mentioned in their WC testimonies that frontal bone was missing and they both signed the autopsy report.

Quote
Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.

The very back of Kennedy's head cannot be made out with any clarity for more than just a few frames. But the lack of clarity is not unique to just his head. The backs of the heads of the others in the limo are "blacked out" as well.

Quote
LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.

While the location that Harper told her was improbable, his placing it that far forward it does indicate that the fragment was found considerably forward of where the limo was at the time of the head shot.

Quote
I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.[/size]

The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 05:41:51 AM

I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm


From that article:

"Autopsy ballistics consultant, Pierre Finck reported to his superior, General Bloomberg, that frontal bone was missing."[50]


I read through Finck's report to the General and cannot find where he wrote that frontal bone was missing. The large wound extended up to where the bullet exited but, as I pointed out already, that didn't include any significant portion of the frontal bone.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image00.htm


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 09:14:20 AM

I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

From that article:

====================================================================================
"Autopsy prosector, J.T. Boswell recalled the missing frontal bone for the ARRB and drew the hole on a plastic skull (see Figure H-12b, below)."
====================================================================================

I just finished reading Boswell's ARRB deposition in its entirety. The above claim made by Hunt is FALSE.  No where in his deposition did Humes recall that the frontal region of the skull was missing bone. He that there was some fracture that extended from the frontal bone through the floor of the orbit. But nothing about any missing frontal bone. The only time that he came close to saying that there was frontal bone missing was when he was asked his opinion on what the dark space seen in the lateral X-Ray view represented.

GUNN. To an untrained eye such as my own, there appears to be a large, dark space, almost as if it's a figure eight, in the frontal area, somewhat behind the eye and down into the cheek. Do you see that area that I'm referring to?

BOSWELL. Mm-hmm.

GUNN. Can you tell me what that represents?

BOSWELL. Well, it looks almost like a pneumo- encephalogram where you got air in and displaced tissue, but--I suspect that that's what that is. I think that's a space with a lot of air in it.

GUNN. So though it is darker, that does not signify that it is missing skull?

BOSWELL. Oh, I don't think
--well, the missing skull is all over. Of course, the drawing we have there is sort of similar to that, isn't it?

Do we have an AP, one straight on?

GUNN. Yes.

BOSWELL. What was the one I just--

GUNN. The first one.

BOSWELL. The first one? May I look at that one again? Yes, you're right. Here it is. See, this is what's missing here.

GUNN. So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere? Is that--

BOSWELL. I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here.


He's trying to make out what the X-Rays are showing and comes close to saying that the AP view shows frontal bone missing.  Even if he said outright that it shows frontal bone missing, it would be a far cry from him saying that he recalled missing frontal bone. Hunt was being somewhat less than honest.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 20, 2020, 03:16:23 PM
You claim that Drs Notebloom and Harper were both pathologists but I've yet to find any bios or curriculum vitae's of theirs that shows what their specialties were. Also, where can we read their statements on the fragment?

That information is in the articles I've linked for you, which obviously you still have not read. This is getting silly. Why are you so afraid to read the other side?

Has not.

Then why do you keep avoiding Dr. Mantik's observations and points that establish that the fragment is occipital bone?  Three times now I have asked you to address his points and observations, which deal with Angel's and Riley's arguments, but you just keep snipping the long quote and ignoring them.

Oh come on. Mantik isn't even a radiologist. You slur Dr Lattimer as being a quack when that label is probably morely aptly applied to Mantik.

So Dr. Mantik "isn't even a radiologist"? No, he's a radiation oncologist who also happens to be a physicist. A radiation oncologist receives extensive training in radiology because he has to expertly read x-rays. Let me know when anyone catches Dr. Mantik outright faking test data and misrepresenting others' test data, as Lattimer was caught doing. Go look at Lattimer's SBT model, for starters.

You want to talk resumes? Have you seen the resumes of Roland Zavada, Dr. Randy Robertson, Harry C. Andrews, Richard J. Blackwell, Thomas N. Canning, Robert Chiralo, David B. Einsendrath, Ronald Francis, William K. Hartmann, Bob R. Hunt, Donald H. Janney, Ellis Kerley, Cecil W. Kirk, Charles J. Leontis, C.S. McCamy, Gerald M. McDonnel, Everett Merritt, Paul G. Roetling, Frank Scott, Robert H. Selzer, Bennet Sherman, Philip N. Slater, Clyde C. Snow, George W. Stroke, and Dr J. Lawrence Angel?

LOL! Have you only been studying the JFK case for a few years? Nearly all the names on your list were experts who only had brief contact with the JFK case because they were asked by a government body to provide input on certain items of evidence, and who have never written anything about the case on their own.

FYI, Dr. Robertson argues that JFK was shot from two directions, and that there were two gunmen. I'm guessing you were not aware of this.

Furthermore, some of the experts on your list gave evidence that was ignored or dismissed because it destroyed the lone-gunman theory. Dr. Canning did not accept the HSCA FPP's placement of the back wound, so he ignored it, and he also reported that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by bullet fragments from the head shot--and for these sins, Canning was treated very badly by members of the FPP.

Similarly, Dr. Angel provided very unwelcomed analysis of the autopsy skull x-rays--he put the Harper fragment in the rear part of the parietal bone, rejected the FPP's claim that the three skull fragments joined and revealed an exit hole, and noted that the x-rays showed that considerable frontal bone was missing. The HSCA FPP, like the WC, dared not admit that frontal bone was missing because no such damage is seen in the autopsy photos that show the face, so they simply ignored Angel's finding.

The FPP was not happy with Dr. McDonnel either, and the feeling became mutual. Dr. McDonnel provided the stunning but every unwanted discovery of another bullet fragment on the back of the head, on the outer table of the skull near the 6.5 mm "fragment"--a fragment that everyone knew could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. McDonnel also confirmed that the skull x-rays showed frontal bone missing. Released internal HSCSA memos and interviews reveal that the HSCA FPP tried to get McDonnel to "change his mind," and in return he became suspicious of the FPP's motives and suspected they would misquote him, if they quoted him at all. The FPP ended up simply ignoring McDonnel's discovery of the extra rear-head fragment and dismissed his observation that the skull x-rays showed missing frontal bone.

Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science)
-- Dr. John Nichols (professor of pathology, University of Kansas)
-- Dr. Milton Helpern (forensic pathologist and a former chief medical examiner for NYC)
-- Dr. Art Snyder (a physicist at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. Michael Chesser (specialist in neurology and neurophysiology)
-- Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist and physicist, with post doctoral work in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar (professor of clinical surgery at Stanford University and the University of California)
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw (professor of clinical surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroscientist)
-- Doug Horne (Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB)
-- Daryll Weatherly (mathematician, State University of New York)
-- Dr. Roderick Ryan (film and photography scientist, formerly with Kodak)
-- Dr. G. Paul Chambers (physicist, formerly a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in DC)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD and conducted wound ballistics experiments that disproved the jet-effect theory for JFK's head snap)
-- Dr. Donald Thomas (entomologist, a senior scientist with the United States federal government, and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Texas)
-- Hershel Womack (professor emeritus of photography, Texas Tech University)
-- Dr. John Newman (former military intelligence officer, served as executive assistant to the director of NSA, and now teaches political science, international terrorism, and counterterrorism at James Madison University--his JFK work has been in the area of Oswald's intelligence connections)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
-- Dr. Cliff Spiegelman (distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, author of over 100 scientific publications, and the author of the award-winning paper recognized by the American Statistical Association: “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”)


The 6.5 mm is "just above the right eye." And as I pointed out, Humes et al did not omit it from the autopsy report. It's the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment.

"Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.”

HUH??? You have no clue what you're talking about. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the head. The 6.5 mm "fragment" is in the back of the head, near the cowlick. You understand that these fragments also appear on the lateral skull x-ray, right? Right? So there is no way Humes et al "mistook" a fragment at the front of the head for a fragment at the back of it. Here are two articles that will bring you up to speed on the basics about this issue:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm

Let's look at the following article by Mantik:

https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JFK-Autopsy-X-Rays-Mantik.pdf

It is copyrighted so I'll refrain from using his graphics. I'll just duplicate them myself. Looking at his first two images:

He maintains that the higher fragment, the one high in the forehead, is the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed.

You are lost in space on this issue. The 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm are two separate fragments at opposite ends of the skull on the skull x-rays. Here is one of Dr. Mantik's articles on the 6.5 mm fragment and on his finding via optical density measurements that it is a fake image--he also found that it is not even a continuous image:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf


But zooming in on the lateral view we can see that that higher fragment looks to be imbedded in the frontal skull bone.  That effectively rules it out as being the larger one that Humes removed. From Humes' WC testimony: [snipping stuff that you clearly do not understand]

Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about here. Let's back up and deal with the issue at hand: Humes said nothing about the 6.5 mm "fragment" in the autopsy report, even though it would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the x-rays. Nor did any of the autopsy doctors mention the fragment in their notes. Humes had at least one lateral-view skull x-ray, so he would have had no problem seeing the fragment and distinguishing it from the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes did not mention the 6.5 mm fragment in his WC testimony--he was clearly, undeniably referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

You know we have testimony from one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy that he was ordered to take skull x-rays with a bullet fragment taped onto a skull, right? Did he just dream this? How would he have been "mistaken" about this? And his testimony is all the more  compelling because he was a very reluctant witness. This information came out thanks to the ARRB.


Sturdivan believes that the fragment was an artifact but he does not believe that it was added to the x-rays. He's wrong about it being an artifact.

No, sorry, but several scientists, including Dr. Mantik, have verified through optical density measurements that the 6.5 mm fragment is not a real fragment but is an image that was placed onto the x-ray.

Sturdivan's point is that he doesn't know how the "fragment" got on the x-ray but that there is no way it could be a fragment from the kind of ammunition that Oswald used, and that therefore it must be an artifact. Ballistics expert Howard Donahue made the same point--that there is no way on this planet that that fragment "sheared off" from an FMJ missile and therefore it could not have come from Oswald's alleged ammo.


It's by the late John Hunt. His stuff is hard to read because he was such an arrogant sort with very limited critical thinking ability.  I'll give it a read though. Well, the exit was considerably above the right eye. But above the right eye nevertheless. The HSCA FPP placed the exit where the parietal bone meets the frontal.


Phew, that's a rather forced, specious definition of "above the right eye."

There was no significant amount of frontal bone missing.

Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none. But now you're trying to weasel-word your way out of the problem by saying "no significant amount," but earlier you said none was missing. Two of your own experts (Angel and McDonnel), independently of each other, observed that frontal bone was missing, and not just a little bit. Dr. McDonnel got so fed up with the FPP over this issue that he came to question their motives. He didn't understand that the FPP could not afford to admit missing frontal bone because it would discredit some of the autopsy photos.

Many of them admitted that they had been mistaken.

No, "many" did not recant. How about all the witnesses who provided wound diagrams to the HSCA and the ARRB? They certainly did not "admit they had been mistaken."

Dr. Aguilar has written a good article on the witnesses who saw the large right-rear head wound:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm


What about those who reported that there was no large wound in the back of the head? Including those who actually performed the forensic examination of the body. Were  they all mistaken?

LOL! Only a handful of witnesses said there was no large wound in the back of the head, and three of them were the discredited autopsy doctors!

I'm going with the hard scientific evidence. You're the one who is ignoring it. You are putting your faith in the opinion of a "wannabe radiologist" who is making absolute conclusions on things seen in x-rays that were never intended to be used for such. The X-Ray machine was even outdated at the time and it was only being used to try and locate any bullet(s) that might not have exited. The X-Rays are poor quality. They were not even near the best that the machine could produce. Custer and Reed must have been under considerable stress. So, one can forgive them for producing substandard images by even the standard of the piece of crap machine itself. Optical density measurements cannot be anywhere accurately made with those X-Rays.

What a jumble of nonsense. Accurate optical density measurements most certainly can be made with the autopsy x-rays, especially given the fact that we can compare the measurements with those made on x-rays of JFK's head taken a few years before he was shot. You'd know this if you could just muster up the courage to read the optical density research. And Dr. Mantik, who is in fact highly qualified in radiology, is not the only one who has done these measurements. Dr. Michael Chesser, a specialist in neurology and neurophysiology, has also done optical density measurements on the skull x-rays and has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings.

Neither Boswell nor Finck mentioned in their WC testimonies that frontal bone was missing and they both signed the autopsy report.

You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"

The problem is that you just won't allow yourself to consider the obvious conclusion that the autopsy report is a bunch of hokum that was produced to try to support the lone-gunman theory. That's why Humes burned his autopsy notes and burned the first draft of the autopsy report, an unprecedented action for a pathologist to take in a criminal gunshot case.


The very back of Kennedy's head cannot be made out with any clarity for more than just a few frames. But the lack of clarity is not unique to just his head. The backs of the heads of the others in the limo are "blacked out" as well.

Yeah, you bet. Clint Hill was on the trunk of the limousine and saw the fresh head wound from just 2-3 feet away, and he saw the same wound when he was sent to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds. Nurse Bowron packed the large head wound with gauze while preparing the body for transport--she saw the same large right-rear head wound that Hill saw. Fast forward a few hours to Bethesda: Tom Robinson, the mortician, had to prepare the skull and the rest of the body for burial, and he saw a large wound in the back of the head (he also saw a small entry-like wound in the right temple--he filled it with wax).

While the location that Harper told her was improbable, his placing it that far forward it does indicate that the fragment was found considerably forward of where the limo was at the time of the head shot.

I notice you ignored his FBI statement, which simply said "south" of the limo.

The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?

Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment. They were surveying to identify the location of the limo for each of the shots. If you look at where those surveys placed the limousine at the time of the head shot, the limousine was well forward of either of the locations that Harper identified. Chuck Marler wrote a very detailed, helpful chapter on the surveys in Assassination Science (pp. 249-262). The book is available for free PDF download:

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 09:10:24 PM

Then why do you keep avoiding Dr. Mantik's observations and points that establish that the fragment is occipital bone?  Three times now I have asked you to address his points and observations, which deal with Angel's and Riley's arguments, but you just keep snipping the long quote and ignoring them.

FYI, Dr. Robertson argues that JFK was shot from two directions, and that there were two gunmen. I'm guessing you were not aware of this.

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 09:16:14 PM

Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science)
-- Dr. John Nichols (professor of pathology, University of Kansas)
-- Dr. Milton Helpern (forensic pathologist and a former chief medical examiner for NYC)
-- Dr. Art Snyder (a physicist at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. Michael Chesser (specialist in neurology and neurophysiology)
-- Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist and physicist, with post doctoral work in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar (professor of clinical surgery at Stanford University and the University of California)
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw (professor of clinical surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroscientist)
-- Doug Horne (Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB)
-- Daryll Weatherly (mathematician, State University of New York)
-- Dr. Roderick Ryan (film and photography scientist, formerly with Kodak)
-- Dr. G. Paul Chambers (physicist, formerly a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in DC)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD and conducted wound ballistics experiments that disproved the jet-effect theory for JFK's head snap)
-- Dr. Donald Thomas (entomologist, a senior scientist with the United States federal government, and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Texas)
-- Hershel Womack (professor emeritus of photography, Texas Tech University)
-- Dr. John Newman (former military intelligence officer, served as executive assistant to the director of NSA, and now teaches political science, international terrorism, and counterterrorism at James Madison University--his JFK work has been in the area of Oswald's intelligence connections)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
-- Dr. Cliff Spiegelman (distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, author of over 100 scientific publications, and the author of the award-winning paper recognized by the American Statistical Association: “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”)[/size]

That's a bogus list. There are some of the names that I don't recognize. Helpern and Speigelman don't belong on the list. I suspect that some of the others don't as well.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 09:48:06 PM

HUH??? You have no clue what you're talking about. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the head. The 6.5 mm "fragment" is in the back of the head, near the cowlick. You understand that these fragments also appear on the lateral skull x-ray, right? Right? So there is no way Humes et al "mistook" a fragment at the front of the head for a fragment at the back of it. Here are two articles that will bring you up to speed on the basics about this issue:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm

You are lost in space on this issue. The 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm are two separate fragments at opposite ends of the skull on the skull x-rays. Here is one of Dr. Mantik's articles on the 6.5 mm fragment and on his finding via optical density measurements that it is a fake image--he also found that it is not even a continuous image:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf


Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about here. Let's back up and deal with the issue at hand: Humes said nothing about the 6.5 mm "fragment" in the autopsy report, even though it would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the x-rays. Nor did any of the autopsy doctors mention the fragment in their notes. Humes had at least one lateral-view skull x-ray, so he would have had no problem seeing the fragment and distinguishing it from the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes did not mention the 6.5 mm fragment in his WC testimony--he was clearly, undeniably referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.


You have just dismissed what I posted with a wave of the hand instead of actually addressing it. The 7mm x 2mm fragment that was removed by Humes is the "6.5 mm" radio-opaque object seen in the AP view. Not only is it mentioned in the autopsy report, Humes refers to it in his WC testimony as well. 33 years later he was having trouble with memory and in trying to make out what he was seeing in the X-Rays and the "6.5 mm" object was throwing him off a bit but he came to the realization of what it was:

"Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI."

It's absolutely what it was. It cannot be the fragment seen higher in the forehead. That fragment is imbedded in the skull. The largest fragment removed by Humes was somewhat behind the eye. It was in the brain. That is something that others involved in the autopsy confirmed as well. Mantik is wrong and no amount of explanation, scientific or other, is going to get around that fact. You need to stop and acknowledge it and admit that you are wrong as well. Here again are the two images.

(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/6jOSTZz.png)

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that fragment.
I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 09:51:18 PM
Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none.

Oh really? Let's see the statements of those doctors in which they swear up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 20, 2020, 10:01:13 PM
That information is in the articles I've linked for you, which obviously you still have not read. This is getting silly. Why are you so afraid to read the other side?

Then why do you keep avoiding Dr. Mantik's observations and points that establish that the fragment is occipital bone?  Three times now I have asked you to address his points and observations, which deal with Angel's and Riley's arguments, but you just keep snipping the long quote and ignoring them.

So Dr. Mantik "isn't even a radiologist"? No, he's a radiation oncologist who also happens to be a physicist. A radiation oncologist receives extensive training in radiology because he has to expertly read x-rays. Let me know when anyone catches Dr. Mantik outright faking test data and misrepresenting others' test data, as Lattimer was caught doing. Go look at Lattimer's SBT model, for starters.

LOL! Have you only been studying the JFK case for a few years? Nearly all the names on your list were experts who only had brief contact with the JFK case because they were asked by a government body to provide input on certain items of evidence, and who have never written anything about the case on their own.

FYI, Dr. Robertson argues that JFK was shot from two directions, and that there were two gunmen. I'm guessing you were not aware of this.

Furthermore, some of the experts on your list gave evidence that was ignored or dismissed because it destroyed the lone-gunman theory. Dr. Canning did not accept the HSCA FPP's placement of the back wound, so he ignored it, and he also reported that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by bullet fragments from the head shot--and for these sins, Canning was treated very badly by members of the FPP.

Similarly, Dr. Angel provided very unwelcomed analysis of the autopsy skull x-rays--he put the Harper fragment in the rear part of the parietal bone, rejected the FPP's claim that the three skull fragments joined and revealed an exit hole, and noted that the x-rays showed that considerable frontal bone was missing. The HSCA FPP, like the WC, dared not admit that frontal bone was missing because no such damage is seen in the autopsy photos that show the face, so they simply ignored Angel's finding.

The FPP was not happy with Dr. McDonnel either, and the feeling became mutual. Dr. McDonnel provided the stunning but every unwanted discovery of another bullet fragment on the back of the head, on the outer table of the skull near the 6.5 mm "fragment"--a fragment that everyone knew could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. McDonnel also confirmed that the skull x-rays showed frontal bone missing. Released internal HSCSA memos and interviews reveal that the HSCA FPP tried to get McDonnel to "change his mind," and in return he became suspicious of the FPP's motives and suspected they would misquote him, if they quoted him at all. The FPP ended up simply ignoring McDonnel's discovery of the extra rear-head fragment and dismissed his observation that the skull x-rays showed missing frontal bone.

Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science)
-- Dr. John Nichols (professor of pathology, University of Kansas)
-- Dr. Milton Helpern (forensic pathologist and a former chief medical examiner for NYC)
-- Dr. Art Snyder (a physicist at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. Michael Chesser (specialist in neurology and neurophysiology)
-- Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist and physicist, with post doctoral work in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar (professor of clinical surgery at Stanford University and the University of California)
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw (professor of clinical surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroscientist)
-- Doug Horne (Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB)
-- Daryll Weatherly (mathematician, State University of New York)
-- Dr. Roderick Ryan (film and photography scientist, formerly with Kodak)
-- Dr. G. Paul Chambers (physicist, formerly a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in DC)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD and conducted wound ballistics experiments that disproved the jet-effect theory for JFK's head snap)
-- Dr. Donald Thomas (entomologist, a senior scientist with the United States federal government, and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Texas)
-- Hershel Womack (professor emeritus of photography, Texas Tech University)
-- Dr. John Newman (former military intelligence officer, served as executive assistant to the director of NSA, and now teaches political science, international terrorism, and counterterrorism at James Madison University--his JFK work has been in the area of Oswald's intelligence connections)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
-- Dr. Cliff Spiegelman (distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, author of over 100 scientific publications, and the author of the award-winning paper recognized by the American Statistical Association: “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”)


HUH??? You have no clue what you're talking about. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the head. The 6.5 mm "fragment" is in the back of the head, near the cowlick. You understand that these fragments also appear on the lateral skull x-ray, right? Right? So there is no way Humes et al "mistook" a fragment at the front of the head for a fragment at the back of it. Here are two articles that will bring you up to speed on the basics about this issue:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm

You are lost in space on this issue. The 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm are two separate fragments at opposite ends of the skull on the skull x-rays. Here is one of Dr. Mantik's articles on the 6.5 mm fragment and on his finding via optical density measurements that it is a fake image--he also found that it is not even a continuous image:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf


Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about here. Let's back up and deal with the issue at hand: Humes said nothing about the 6.5 mm "fragment" in the autopsy report, even though it would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the x-rays. Nor did any of the autopsy doctors mention the fragment in their notes. Humes had at least one lateral-view skull x-ray, so he would have had no problem seeing the fragment and distinguishing it from the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes did not mention the 6.5 mm fragment in his WC testimony--he was clearly, undeniably referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

You know we have testimony from one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy that he was ordered to take skull x-rays with a bullet fragment taped onto a skull, right? Did he just dream this? How would he have been "mistaken" about this? And his testimony is all the more  compelling because he was a very reluctant witness. This information came out thanks to the ARRB.


No, sorry, but several scientists, including Dr. Mantik, have verified through optical density measurements that the 6.5 mm fragment is not a real fragment but is an image that was placed onto the x-ray.

Sturdivan's point is that he doesn't know how the "fragment" got on the x-ray but that there is no way it could be a fragment from the kind of ammunition that Oswald used, and that therefore it must be an artifact. Ballistics expert Howard Donahue made the same point--that there is no way on this planet that that fragment "sheared off" from an FMJ missile and therefore it could not have come from Oswald's alleged ammo.

 

Phew, that's a rather forced, specious definition of "above the right eye."

Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none. But now you're trying to weasel-word your way out of the problem by saying "no significant amount," but earlier you said none was missing. Two of your own experts (Angel and McDonnel), independently of each other, observed that frontal bone was missing, and not just a little bit. Dr. McDonnel got so fed up with the FPP over this issue that he came to question their motives. He didn't understand that the FPP could not afford to admit missing frontal bone because it would discredit some of the autopsy photos.

No, "many" did not recant. How about all the witnesses who provided wound diagrams to the HSCA and the ARRB? They certainly did not "admit they had been mistaken."

Dr. Aguilar has written a good article on the witnesses who saw the large right-rear head wound:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm


LOL! Only a handful of witnesses said there was no large wound in the back of the head, and three of them were the discredited autopsy doctors!

What a jumble of nonsense. Accurate optical density measurements most certainly can be made with the autopsy x-rays, especially given the fact that we can compare the measurements with those made on x-rays of JFK's head taken a few years before he was shot. You'd know this if you could just muster up the courage to read the optical density research. And Dr. Mantik, who is in fact highly qualified in radiology, is not the only one who has done these measurements. Dr. Michael Chesser, a specialist in neurology and neurophysiology, has also done optical density measurements on the skull x-rays and has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings.

You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"

The problem is that you just won't allow yourself to consider the obvious conclusion that the autopsy report is a bunch of hokum that was produced to try to support the lone-gunman theory. That's why Humes burned his autopsy notes and burned the first draft of the autopsy report, an unprecedented action for a pathologist to take in a criminal gunshot case.


Yeah, you bet. Clint Hill was on the trunk of the limousine and saw the fresh head wound from just 2-3 feet away, and he saw the same wound when he was sent to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds. Nurse Bowron packed the large head wound with gauze while preparing the body for transport--she saw the same large right-rear head wound that Hill saw. Fast forward a few hours to Bethesda: Tom Robinson, the mortician, had to prepare the skull and the rest of the body for burial, and he saw a large wound in the back of the head (he also saw a small entry-like wound in the right temple--he filled it with wax).

I notice you ignored his FBI statement, which simply said "south" of the limo.

Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment. They were surveying to identify the location of the limo for each of the shots. If you look at where those surveys placed the limousine at the time of the head shot, the limousine was well forward of either of the locations that Harper identified. Chuck Marler wrote a very detailed, helpful chapter on the surveys in Assassination Science (pp. 249-262). The book is available for free PDF download:

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf


https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf[/size]
Yeah, sure... a book edited and containing articles by one James H Fetzer, he of Sandy Hook denial fame

The man is white trash:

Wkipedia: 'In the early 1990s, Fetzer began to promote John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, later 9/11 conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories regarding the 2002 death of Senator Paul Wellstone and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories since the multiple fatalities in 2012 He cofounded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005,[7] and claims that the United States government, Israeli government and Israeli Mossad are involved in these and other conspiracies. Fetzer's allegations and speculations have drawn strong criticism.[7][8][9][10][11] In October 2019, a Wisconsin court ordered Fetzer to pay the father of a Sandy Hook victim $450,000 in a defamation case.[12][13][14][15]'
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 10:02:15 PM
You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"

You have completely ignored what I posted this morning on this. Here it is again:

From that article:

"Autopsy ballistics consultant, Pierre Finck reported to his superior, General Bloomberg, that frontal bone was missing."[50]

I read through Finck's report to the General and cannot find where he wrote that frontal bone was missing. The large wound extended up to where the bullet exited but, as I pointed out already, that didn't include any significant portion of the frontal bone.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image00.htm
===================================

Again from Hunt's article:

====================================================================================
"Autopsy prosector, J.T. Boswell recalled the missing frontal bone for the ARRB and drew the hole on a plastic skull (see Figure H-12b, below)."
====================================================================================

I just finished reading Boswell's ARRB deposition in its entirety. The above claim made by Hunt is FALSE.  No where in his deposition did Humes recall that the frontal region of the skull was missing bone. He said that there was some fracture that extended from the frontal bone through the floor of the orbit. But nothing about any missing frontal bone. The only time that he came close to saying that there was frontal bone missing was when he was asked his opinion on what the dark space seen in the lateral X-Ray view represented.

GUNN. To an untrained eye such as my own, there appears to be a large, dark space, almost as if it's a figure eight, in the frontal area, somewhat behind the eye and down into the cheek. Do you see that area that I'm referring to?

BOSWELL. Mm-hmm.

GUNN. Can you tell me what that represents?

BOSWELL. Well, it looks almost like a pneumo- encephalogram where you got air in and displaced tissue, but--I suspect that that's what that is. I think that's a space with a lot of air in it.

GUNN. So though it is darker, that does not signify that it is missing skull?

BOSWELL. Oh, I don't think--well, the missing skull is all over. Of course, the drawing we have there is sort of similar to that, isn't it?

Do we have an AP, one straight on?

GUNN. Yes.

BOSWELL. What was the one I just--

GUNN. The first one.

BOSWELL. The first one? May I look at that one again? Yes, you're right. Here it is. See, this is what's missing here.

GUNN. So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere? Is that--

BOSWELL. I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here.

He's trying to make out what the X-Rays are showing and comes close to saying that the AP view shows frontal bone missing.  Even if he said outright that it shows frontal bone missing, it would be a far cry from him saying that he recalled missing frontal bone. Hunt was being somewhat less than honest.

....................................................

If you continue to give my posts short shrift then I won't be wasting any more of my time with you.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2020, 10:24:41 PM
Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment.

 ???

That has to be the stupidest thing that I've seen in weeks. And I see a lot of stupid comments from CTs on various discussion groups. Do you ever even stop to think about what it is that you are talking about?

For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.

I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.[/size]

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 04:24:34 AM
The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 21, 2020, 12:59:37 AM

When talking about where the Harper fragment ended up, don’t forget Zapruder frames 313 and 314.

(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg)

(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg)

The Harper fragment is seen flying up and forward. It looks like a streak of dots. As the fragments rotated, it would sometime be seen edge on, hence a series of dots. How do we know that this object is the Harper fragment? Well, if it isn’t, there were two fragments. A visible fragment and an invisible fragment. And the visible fragment was never found while the invisible fragment was found and became known as the Harper fragment. This is very unlikely. Why would the Harper fragment be invisible in frames 313 and 314? It is big enough to be seen.

It's funny that CTers believe the invisible piece of bone that Jackie allegedly went out on the trunk to retrieve was real, while questioning the visible flying fragment in frames 313 and 314. I think the ‘Jackie fragment’ and the ‘Harper fragment’ so how little CTers are influenced by evidence, and how strongly influenced by belief. They believe the fragment that can’t be seen but don’t believe in the fragment that can be seen and has been recovered.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 21, 2020, 06:08:47 AM
Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 21, 2020, 07:54:57 AM
Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zGGLk9fV/jackie-reach-skull.jpg)
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336081190946058915/

Hill later told the Warren Commission that he thought Mrs. Kennedy was reaching for a piece of the president's skull that had been blown off. He crawled to her and guided her back into her seat. Once back in the car, Hill placed his body above the president and Mrs. Kennedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Hill_(Secret_Service)#:~:text=Kennedy%20was%20reaching%20for%20a,Kennedy.

Jackie Kennedy leaped onto the back of the presidential limousine in a desperate bid to save her husband by attempting to retrieve a piece of his skull.
https://www.newser.com/story/143414/chilling-memoir-jackie-tried-to-save-piece-of-jfks-skull.html

"[The Nix Film] shows very clearly that [Jackie Kennedy] is reaching for a piece of skull on the back portion of the automobile."
Rob Caprio
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-92.html

onto the limousine trunk to retrieve a portion of her husband's skull.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/opinion/l-testimony-and-film-leave-mrs-kennedy-s-actions-a-mystery-509388.html

(https://i.postimg.cc/Gpw7ZJsw/reach-skull-fragment.jpg)
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Jackie-Kennedy-reaching-for-when-President-Kennedy-was-shot

JohnM

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 21, 2020, 10:44:44 AM
Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)


John Costello says that the whole Zapruder film is fake but as I will show, he keeps writing checks that he can't afford and he only brings shame to your list and I bet many others on your list who take on subjects they don't understand will just as easily be exposed.

1. Costello claims that the crowd on Zapruder's side of the road show no reaction and @16:00 makes a joke comment that they should be told to the President's driven past so they can show a reaction? Does Costello expect the mature adult crowd to start doing jumping jacks or something equally ludicrous?

Not only do some people move as the Limo goes past, two of the women number 2 and number 6 can be seen raising their hands to clap and the others you can't see their hands.

(https://i.postimg.cc/NMDWvgSw/zapruder-ladies-clap2.gif)

Here's the starting pre Z133 frames and you can see people straining and peering around each other to see what's coming.

(https://i.postimg.cc/T2g1rnrL/zapruder-crowd-close-GIF.gif)

2. Costello claims that the posts of the Stemmons freeway sign flip/flop as compared to the background but he doesn't take into account the slight separation of the panning and the simple distortion of either side of a camera lens.
But if he tested any other footage he would see that it's not only possible but repeatable on the camera in my GIF.
It may take a few cycles of viewing the following GIF to fully comprehend, but this GIF shows the same effect as Costello claims in Zapruder is fakery!

Costello's claim
(http://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/signline.gif)

JohnM's rebuttal showing the slight panning and the lamp post at either end of a camera lens
(https://i.postimg.cc/8ccGcJgH/zapruder-costello.gif)

This web site goes into more detail about why Costello is wrong.

"John Costello can't tell us why the sign and the lamppost are the way they are in the Zapruder film. He shows us the results of his sophisticated digital processing, he shows us his extensive panoramas, but he can't tell us how the apparently different signs in the Barnes photo and Zapruder frames came to be. Following Jim Fetzer's lead, he offers us only doubt, mistrust, and some vague hints of a massive conspiracy lurking in the shadows."
https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/costella.html

JohnM

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 21, 2020, 02:16:30 PM
By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."

Corroboration for Dr. Ebersole's HSCA statement comes from none other than Dr. Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors. In files released by the ARRB, we learn that Dr. Boswell made it clear to the HSCA that part of the rear entry wound, which he and the other pathologists said was located in the occiput, was contained in a piece of missing bone that didn't arrive until late that night. Thus, according to Dr. Boswell's detailed description to HSCA investigators, that late-arriving bone fragment would have had to be mostly or entirely from the occipital area. The Harper fragment contains part a bullet hole as well.

Not only does this strengthen the case that there was a large defect in part of the occiput, but it discredits autopsy photos F3 and F5, i.e., the photos that show the back of the head intact. Recall that even the autopsy report said that the large head wound extended into the occiput (p. 3); however, in F3 and F5, the large wound does not even come close to the occiput.

This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.

Joe O'Donnell, who worked with White House photographer Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole in the back of the head. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.

This information has been known and discussed in numerous books and articles since the late 1990s, but most WC apologists seem to be unaware of it, or else they are ignoring it because they cannot explain it.




Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 21, 2020, 02:52:35 PM
See the Harper fragment with your own eyes being blasted out and forward and NO where else in the Zapruder film do we see the ridiculous theory of a sizeable fragment and matter being blasted out the back.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SxvP4z3G/harper-skull.gif)

The following recreation shows a similar effect.

(https://i.postimg.cc/VNMPHRvt/harper-fragment-simulation.gif)

Where the Harper fragment came from.

(https://i.postimg.cc/CKtHdGsc/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)

Ain't no exit hole back here and the impossible to fake stereoscopic autopsy photo proves it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTvX544w/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)

(1) Vascular grooves

The inner surface of the skull is marked in places by vascular grooves, i.e., small depressions where blood vessels are located in vivo. In the case of parietal bone, vascular grooves are mainly from branches of the middle meningeal. No such pattern exists for occipital bone; it has an entirely different type of interior surface which will be described below. The photograph of the interior surface of the Harper fragment (HSCA Fig. 27; see Figure 1A and compare to Figure 1C) shows a pattern of vascular grooving entirely consistent with it being parietal bone and entirely inconsistent with it being occipital bone.

In contrast to parietal bone, occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving. It does have internal markings, including deep sulci ("grooves") that are much larger than vascular grooves; these are grooves for the transverse sinus and superior sagittal sinus. No such deep grooves are visible in the photographs of the Harper fragment.

(2) Additional features

Parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth (excluding vascular grooves) inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness. In contrast, occipital bone is characterized by major variations on its internal surface (i.e., many different bumps and grooves from various things), much greater curvature, and substantial variation in thickness (compare drawings of internal aspects of parietal and occipital bone in Figure 2). Simply put, occipital bone doesn't look like the fragment in Figure 1 but parietal bone does. There are numerous other reasons why the Harper fragment is parietal bone. For example, parietal foramina (vascular perforations of a type that occur only in parietal bone) visible in the photograph establish the location and orientation of the fragment. It is worth mentioning that if the Harper fragment were lower occipital bone, death would have been virtually instantaneous. The lower portion of occipital bone forms the foramen magnum (the space through which the forebrain connects to the spinal cord); for numerous reasons, it is virtually inconceivable that John Kennedy would have shown any vital signs following explosive destruction of this area.

The information reported here establishes that the Harper fragment is parietal, not occipital bone. This fact should not be over-interpreted. The conclusion supports the authenticity of the medical evidence, but does not prove it. More importantly, the origin of the Harper fragment as parietal bone does not in any way support the conclusion that John Kennedy was struck in the head by one and only one bullet. The conclusion simply clarifies the remaining issues in evaluating the medical evidence.

The controversy over the autopsy of John Kennedy has generated many unresolved questions about the medical evidence. However, the available evidence is sufficient to determine the origin of the Harper fragment based on the anatomical features of the fragment. These anatomical features no doubt seem obscure to the general reader but they are definitive to a neuroanatomist. All of the features of the Harper fragment are consistent with it being parietal bone and inconsistent with it being occipital bone; there can be no reasonable scientific doubt that the Harper fragment is parietal bone.


(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.gif)
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 21, 2020, 04:52:40 PM
The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out. The 6.5 mm object was never on JFK's skull and was not placed on the AP x-ray until after the autopsy. This explains why the autopsy doctors did not mention the object in the autopsy report, why they did not mention the object in their WC testimony, and why they each told the ARRB that they did not see the object on the night of the autopsy.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, studied the autopsy x-rays and discovered that the 6.5 mm "fragment" on the AP x-ray is not really a fragment but rather an image that has been ghosted over a very small, genuine metal fragment, which can be seen on the lateral and AP skull x-rays. Dr. Mantik discovered this by studying the object under high magnification and then by doing optical density measurements of the object. He was even able to duplicate a process that could have been used in the 1960s to place the object on the AP x-ray.


Since, according to the WC and the HSCA, the nose and tail of the rear-entry FMJ bullet were found in the limousine, the 6.5 mm “fragment” would have to be the cross-section from the interior of the FMJ bullet, which is an impossibility with this kind of ammo under these circumstances, as even HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged. Dr. Mantik discusses the importance of Sturdivan’s admission:

Quote
During the lifetime of the HSCA, Larry Sturdivan served as its ballistics consultant. In his subsequent book he emphasized that he had never, in his entire career, seen a cross-section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull. So, totally contrary to all prior government investigations, he concluded that the 6.5 mm object could not be a metal fragment:

“I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not, is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (E-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998)

This was a radical statement. After all, the HSCA in particular, had relied on the (metallic) authenticity of this fragment in the most fundamental manner: based on the supposed reality of this 6.5 mm object, the HSCA had concluded that the bullet (from the sole headshot) had deposited this 6.5 mm “metal fragment” near its entry site at the back of the skull. (“The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest ‘Metallic Fragment,’” p. 5, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)

When was the 6.5 mm object placed on the AP x-ray? There is evidence that suggests it was put there shortly before the Clark Panel viewed the autopsy x-rays and photos in 1968.

The autopsy doctors reexamined the autopsy x-rays in January 1967, and after doing so they signed a statement that said the materials they had just examined "corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the summary of our autopsy report." They could not have truthfully said this if the AP skull x-ray that they viewed had contained the 6.5 mm fragment.

The key word here being “truthfully.” The 6.5 mm object might have been on the AP x-ray by the time the autopsy doctors reexamined the autopsy x-rays in 1967, and the doctors might have decided to ignore it because they realized the huge problems it created for the credibility of the autopsy report, for their own credibility as pathologists, and for the location of the rear head entry wound.

Additionally, Dr. Finck might have been aware, and might have informed Humes and Boswell, that the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used could not have deposited a 6.5 mm fragment at the entry point on the outer table of skull, especially not below the entry point, since the bullet entered the skull at a downward angle and thus would have deposited the fragment above the hole, not below it.

Many researchers believe the 6.5 mm object was placed on the AP x-ray soon after the autopsy, and there is some evidence that suggests this. If such is the case, it means the autopsy doctors ignored the object when they reexamined the autopsy x-rays in early 1967.


 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 21, 2020, 05:01:47 PM

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

More people should remind themselves that all their current beliefs are subject to review and may be changed in the future. That we can’t know for certain what happened but only estimate what probably happened. And these estimates are always subject to change.



But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 21, 2020, 06:12:53 PM
Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.

Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 21, 2020, 10:39:27 PM
By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."

"Again we are relying on a 15 year old recollection."

Ebersole testified that the X-Rays in the National Archives are the ones that he supervised the taking of just prior to the start of the autopsy on Kennedy. He positively identified them , which is why he knew that his recollection on the location of the large head wound was off. Jerrol Custer believed that the X-Rays were genuine. He was shown three X-Rays of the skull during his ARRB testimony and he confirmed that he had taken them. Those X-Rays were (1),(2),and (3) in the list below.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image01.htm

Quote
This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.

Saundra Spencer obviously never processed the autopsy photos. The description that she gave of the body would have been how it appeared post-autopsy.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 21, 2020, 10:50:12 PM
The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out.

 Thumb1: It's the 7mm x 2mm fragment that was removed by Humes. It was acknowledged as such by Humes in his WC testimony and in his ARRB deposition. Both Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed also placed the large fragment as being located just superior to the right supra-orbital ridge.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 22, 2020, 04:29:44 PM

Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?

Anything of significant size, yes. The Zapruder film only shows material being blasted forward and/or up. Nothing, that is big enough to be seen, going backwards. This is an indication of a shot from the back, not from the front.

Certainly, small particles did go backwards. But small particles are the ones most effected by the wind. And the limousine was driving into a head wind of 10-15 mph. With its own 8 mph speed, the wind relative to the limousine was 18-23 mph. So, we don’t even know if any small particles were initially propelled backwards. It is possible that all the small particles, just like the larger ones that are visible, were also initially propelled forward, but got caught in the wind and blew backwards. That would explain why all the large particles, like the Harper fragment, ended up going forward while only the smaller particles ended up going backwards.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 22, 2020, 08:27:30 PM
We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.  We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.  How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Tonkovich on July 22, 2020, 09:01:09 PM
We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.  We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.  How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?

The second bullet to the President's head, at the EOP, might be responsible for that.
Might want to check the hole in the collar of Kennedy's coat.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 23, 2020, 01:19:00 PM
Dr. Mantik explains how the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP x-ray:

Quote
The 6.5 mm object was not described in the autopsy report nor was it seen by anyone on the original autopsy X-rays. Among the many dozens of individuals at the autopsy, no one saw it, even though the X-rays were on public display during the autopsy. Nor has anyone at the autopsy ever recalled a single conversation about it. This peculiar object simply materialized in the public record, for the first time four years later with the 1968 Clark Panel report.

This artifact was added to the JFK AP skull X-ray (in the darkroom) via a double exposure of a 6.5 mm aperture (e.g., via a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of cardboard). In this process, the first step was to imprint the image from the original X-ray onto a duplicate film (via a light box in the dark room). The second step was another exposure that imprinted the 6.5 mm image onto the duplicate film (i.e., superimposing it over the image of the original X-ray). This duplicate film was then developed to yield the image seen in Figure 1. This process inevitably produces a phantom effect, whereby objects (e.g., bullet fragments in this case) on the original film are seen separately from the superimposed 6.5 mm image. On JFK’s AP skull X-ray, the original metal fragment (that lay at the back of the skull) can be seen separately through the 6.5 mm image (Figure 7). ("The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest 'Metallic Fragment,'" p. 14, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)

Dr. Michael Chesser, a specialist in neurology and neurophysiology, studied the originals of the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives and confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings that the x-rays have been altered and that the 6.5 mm object is not an image of a bullet but an image that was added to the AP x-ray. He used optical density measurements and confirmed that the white patch seen on the lateral x-rays, which covers the area corresponding to the right-rear part of the head, is impossibly dense and physiologically impossible. He also discovered that the HSCA FPP published a misleading copy of the lateral skull x-ray to give the false impression that it is blurry and largely useless:

Quote
In the HSCA report you’ll find this very blurred image of the original right lateral skull x-ray (actually the inventory lists two left lateral skull x-rays). Looking at this image in the report would make you think that this x-ray is in horrible condition, and that the anterior half of the skull was so dim that no useful information could be obtained. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The actual original x-rays are in excellent condition, showing only minor aging, and this blurred copy doesn’t represent the original film well. This blurred image is very misleading – the purported reason for the need to enhance the x-rays was the poor image quality – that simply isn’t true.

Now I want to go back to the right lateral view, and to focus on the white patch, which Dr. Mantik has written so much about. I agree completely with him, that this points toward tampering.

Notice on the left this same area on the 1960 [JFK] skull x-ray, and how it is much less white, or dense, compared to the base of the skull, the petrous portion of the temporal bone.

Dr. Mantik took many more optical density readings that I did, but I wanted to show that my readings agree with his – that the white patch appears much more dense than is possible. On the left lateral x-ray, the OD reading was much more dense than the petrous bone – and again, this is not possible. An optical density of .24 is equivalent to a much higher density of the skull in this region, compared with an optical density of .32, and this is not physiologic, even in the face of traumatic alteration of the skull.

Most physicians, myself included, are not aware of the usefulness of optical densitometry for analyzing x-ray film, and I think it was Dr. Mantik’s background as a physicist which caused him to recognize the potential for applying this technology to these films.

Dr. Mantik has written extensively about the technique of double exposure and how this could have been accomplished with these films. I mention other possibilities because we know that the skull was reconstructed, and that the morticians used a rubber patch combined with plaster of Paris to fill in skull defects after the autopsy. I can’t exclude this, however I think that Dr. Mantik is probably right that double exposure is how the alteration was accomplished.

Next, I’d like to talk about the 6.5 mm bright object. The official version is that this is a slice of the midpoint of a Mannlicher Carcano bullet, that broke off and is embedded between the skull and the galea at the HSCA entry wound location.

If you take into account the angle taken for the AP x-ray, then it has to lie somewhere along the red line on the left. The only metallic appearing object along this path is the fragment noted at the back of the skull. I agree with Dr. Mantik that this fragment lies within the circumference of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object was added to the image.

Dr. G.M. McDonnel, who made the computer enhanced images, described this fragment as being located between the outer table of the skull and the galea, the thickest layer of the scalp. He postulated that this broke off when the bullet hit the skull, and this fragment was thrown sideways and away from the skull, embedding itself in this location.

This is how the object appeared to me on the original film. There are two metallic fragments visible within the circumference of this object, and I agree with Dr. Mantik that the largest of these appears to correspond with the object embedded in the galea. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s description of the two fragments visible within the circumference of this object. I saw this only on the original AP x-ray – the HSCA copy shows a uniformly bright object.

I agree with Dr. Mantik that this is artifactual, and it was most likely added by double exposure. He has described this in detail in his publications. ("A Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographs," http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)




Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 24, 2020, 01:10:48 AM
I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender. He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.

He has a whole website on that at:

 http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/ (http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/)

. . .

Another attempt to poison the well with a completely off-topic smear.

Elliott does that a lot.

I point out CTers ‘eccentric’ views in that less than 10 per cent of my posts. I would hardly call that a lot. And it’s not a smear if the criticism is accurate. Is it a ‘smear’ to say that Joseph McCarthy was a demagogue, more interested in making headlines than finding the truth, or even finding real Communists and didn’t care how many innocent lives he ruined? Is that a smear? No, its accurate.

Until recently, Mr. Griffith was the ‘go to’ expert at this forum when a CTer wished to argue against the Ballistic Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis. His other believes are pertinent. If John McAdams were to argue that the South didn’t secede in order to maintain Slavery, but was really over High Tariffs (which in 1860 were actually at their lowest level since 1816), you don’t think CTers would fine this pertinent? CTers would be ‘poisoning the well’ with thousands of gallons. We would be hearing about John McAdams Pro-Confederacy beliefs all the time, if this was true. And it goes without saying, that if all this was true, John McAdams would not be a prominent spokesman for the LN side.

For whatever reasons, CTers, more prominent ones like James Fetzer and Jim Marrs, and less prominent ones like Michael Griffith, seem to often hold, how shall I say it, eccentric views on subjects outside the JFK Assassination. Much more so than LNers do. If the situation was reversed, CTers would be pointing this out all the time.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 24, 2020, 02:06:06 AM

We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.

We know the Harper fragment went forward. We can see it flying forward in frames 313 and 314. Unless, as I said, there were two fragments. One visible and one invisible. The invisible one was found, the ‘Harper fragment’. The visible fragment was never found. Highly unlikely. Most likely, the white object we see flying up and forward is the Harper fragment. So, it went forward. That is why it was found forward of the z313 position.

We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.

And because the limousine was heading southwest, ‘South of the limo’ is forward and to the left.

How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?

First of all, must a fragment be sent flying directly in line with the bullet? Looking at frame 313:

(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg)

We can see debris heading in many directions. The Harper fragment heading up at a 45-degree angle must be off line by at least 45 degrees, unless one believes the shot came from under the limousine.


And this is not exactly a glancing shot. It hit near the center of the back of the head and exited the right side of the head close to the face.


Now, as one can also see from Frame 312:

(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg)

JFK’s head is turned significantly to the left. We can tell because from Don Roberdeau’s map, the limousine was on a compass course of about 208 degrees. The sun was shining from about 189 degrees. And yet, part of JFK’s right face is lite up by the sun. This would not be the case, unless JFK’s head was turned significantly to the left by more than 19 degrees. Giving a straight-line angle, from the right side of his head to points forward and to the left of the limousine. Not to mention the possibility that the fragment could have come more from the top of the skull than the side, which would not require any kind of head turn.

And no ballistic expert has found it impossible for a fragment from the head to be sent flying up and forward and to the left of the limousine. But, because non-Ballistic experts have determined this to be impossible, we should conclude that it is impossible?


How about the 'frisbee effect'?

Elliott will work it out.

Yes, I think I worked it out without using an ‘frisbee effect’.

He's so into physics!

Is that a criticism or a complement? Anyone trying to figure out the head shot should be into Physics. If one is going to claim the head is moving according to basic Physics, he had better understand Classical Physics. The vast majority who make this claim do not actually understand Classical Physics and such concepts as the Conservation of Momentum.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 24, 2020, 01:49:04 PM
Quote
Quote from: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender.

What on earth does this have to do with the JFK assassination? I would never use the argument "Well, he's an Obama defender and/or a Biden defender" to try to make a point in a JFK discussion, because such a comment would be irrelevant. People who make such comments are only showing their own blind, rabid partisan bias.

If you bother to read the comments I have made about Trump in this forum, you will see that my position on him is mixed. I defend most of his policies, but I do not like the way he often conducts himself and I do not think much of him as a person. He was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates in the 2016 GOP primary.


Quote
Quote from: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.

He has a whole website on that at: http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/

My views on that subject have undergone a substantial shift over the last four years. I still believe that under the original understanding of the Constitution, the South had the right to secede, but I no longer believe that the South had sufficient justification for exercising that right. This is why you will notice that my Civil War site has many articles that defend Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan. In fact, I have devoted an entire website to a defense of McClellan (there are links to it on my Civil War site). People who have been following my Civil War site for some time have noticed that I took down my harshly critical anti-Lincoln article, because my views on Lincoln have undergone a dramatic shift.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2020, 05:24:23 PM
Until recently, Mr. Griffith was the ‘go to’ expert at this forum when a CTer wished to argue against the Ballistic Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis. His other believes are pertinent. If John McAdams were to argue that the South didn’t secede in order to maintain Slavery, but was really over High Tariffs (which in 1860 were actually at their lowest level since 1816), you don’t think CTers would fine this pertinent?

No.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of an argument about the JFK assassination.

But where exactly does Griffith argue that the south didn’t secede in order to maintain slavery?  Because you're the guy who falsely accused Mantik of being a holocaust denier.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2020, 05:37:11 PM
We know the Harper fragment went forward. We can see it flying forward in frames 313 and 314.

That's a circular argument.  You're assuming that what you see is the Harper fragment with one of your patented "most likely" arguments.

Quote
First of all, must a fragment be sent flying directly in line with the bullet? Looking at frame 313:

Supposedly it was a glancing shot displacing skull to the right of the midline.  So what force carries it to the left?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/HSCA-JFK-head-7-125.jpg)

Quote
And no ballistic expert has found it impossible for a fragment from the head to be sent flying up and forward and to the left of the limousine.

This is one of those nonsense phrases that is meaningless.  What "ballistic expert" has opined one way or the other?  "Ballistic experts", like anyone else, have to make a boatload of assumptions about the source of the shot, the weapon used, the speed of the bullet, the exact moment of the strike, etc, in order to evaluate what they would subjectively think is possible or not.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 24, 2020, 06:56:45 PM
What on earth does this have to do with the JFK assassination? I would never use the argument "Well, he's an Obama defender and/or a Biden defender" to try to make a point in a JFK discussion, because such a comment would be irrelevant. People who make such comments are only showing their own blind, rabid partisan bias.

If you bother to read the comments I have made about Trump in this forum, you will see that my position on him is mixed. I defend most of his policies, but I do not like the way he often conducts himself and I do not think much of him as a person. He was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates in the 2016 GOP primary.


I didn’t talk about Trump. I talked about your views on the Civil War.

CTers are free to bring up subjects that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

Like Gerald Posner plagiarism on articles he wrote that had nothing to do with the assassination. These charges were true. Easy enough for a professional reporter to do. Reporters get their information from what other reporters write. There is simply not enough time for each reporter to conduct their own interviews and write the number of articles demanded of them. And what person who makes the news would be willing or able to give an interview to all the thousands of reporters who want to write about them. But a report is supposed to reword everything, so that everything is in his own worlds. In this ‘Cut and Paste’ world, I would guess Posner ran out of time and published the words of others. This is a technical violation of reporter ethics and he was fired. In any case, CTers make a big deal of this, which has nothing to do with the JFK assassination, and that’s all right.

Or John McAdams being fired for reasons that had nothing to do with his statements on the JFK assassination. But, again, it was alright for CTers to talk about this a lot. Unlike Posner, there was no justified reason for him being fired. The courts ruled that he was fired for political reasons, not because he had done anything unethical.

But, if a LNer talks about the beliefs or actions of CTers, that somehow is off topic.


My views on that subject have undergone a substantial shift over the last four years. I still believe that under the original understanding of the Constitution, the South had the right to secede, but I no longer believe that the South had sufficient justification for exercising that right. This is why you will notice that my Civil War site has many articles that defend Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan. In fact, I have devoted an entire website to a defense of McClellan (there are links to it on my Civil War site). People who have been following my Civil War site for some time have noticed that I took down my harshly critical anti-Lincoln article, because my views on Lincoln have undergone a dramatic shift.

George McClellan believed that slavery should be allowed to continue. So did Lincoln’s. But by January 1863, Lincoln believed it should not, where McClelland believed slavery should continue, as late as November 1964 and probably until the end of the war. So, I’m not impressed by a defense of McClellan.

But you still believe, as far as I can tell, that the South went to war over the high tariff, and not to protect slavery. This is quite false. These are not the reasons the South was giving in 1861, where they made it clear it was to protect slavery. I don’t know why anyone would ever believe they seceded because of the tariff.

In a nutshell, I believe secession is wrong for two reasons:

1.   It would tend to cause Democracies to split up. Making them more vulnerable to non-Democracies. As Lincoln made clear in his Gettysburg address, the ultimate Union cause was to ensure that the government of the people will not perish from the Earth.

2.   If Secession is a right, then it can be used by the Minority to get what it wants. It turns Democracy on its ear. In the 1850’s Democracy was turned topsy-turvy.
      The South got what it wanted against the wishes of the majority on:

a.   No railway to the west coast, uniting the country – too advantageous to the North.
b.   No Homestead Act – too advantageous to the North
c.   A Low Tariff – wanted by the South
d.   Prevent the establishment of the “Land Grant Colleges” – not wanted by the South.

The South, the minority, was getting all sorts of things they wanted, all through the threat of Secession. Many of which had seemingly nothing to do with slavery.

Once the South seceded, and secession was no longer a threat, in 1862, the majority finally got what it wanted. The building of the Transcontinental railroad. The college land grands, which started colleges, like the University of California, among others. These colleges were the key to allowing America to becoming a real-world leader in Science in the twentieth century. It has been argued that the high tariffs were the key to getting industry established in America, because, initially, they could not compete with Europe. But once allowed to get established, they could more than compete against Europe, even on a level playing field.

In any case, right or wrong, the majority should get what it wants, not the minority. The threat of secession turns this on its head.

By the way, in 1861, Congress did raise the tariffs. But this happened after the 7 states seceded. And the other 4 seceded not because of the high tariff but because of the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s call on them to supply troops, and the likely necessary for Union armies to pass through them, as they did through Pennsylvania, and indeed all northern states. High tariffs did not cause secession. Secession caused the high tariffs.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 24, 2020, 07:05:37 PM
That's a circular argument.  You're assuming that what you see is the Harper fragment with one of your patented "most likely" arguments.

I’ve covered that.

Supposedly it was a glancing shot displacing skull to the right of the midline.  So what force carries it to the left?

I never said it was glancing.

What force carried to the left? What force carried it upwards, as we see in frame 313? Debris is sent in many directions downrange, to the left, to the right, upward, downward, from what anyone can clearly see in frame 313.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/HSCA-JFK-head-7-125.jpg)
This is one of those nonsense phrases that is meaningless.  What "ballistic expert" has opined one way or the other?  "Ballistic experts", like anyone else, have to make a boatload of assumptions about the source of the shot, the weapon used, the speed of the bullet, the exact moment of the strike, etc, in order to evaluate what they would subjectively think is possible or not.
[/quote]

“Ballistic expert” as in a professional ballistic expert. Who conducts scientific experiments with firearms and various targets. Who conducts these experiments in a systematic manner. Who can give testimony in courts on this technical subject of firearms. These are the ones that I refer to as ballistic experts.

And as far as I know, none of them agree with the CTers on the “impossibility” of the Single Bullet Theory. On the “impossibility” of the Head shot. On the “impossibility” that the headshot caused the slight wound to Mr. Tague.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 24, 2020, 07:15:16 PM

No.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of an argument about the JFK assassination.

But where exactly does Griffith argue that the south didn’t secede in order to maintain slavery?  Because you're the guy who falsely accused Mantik of being a holocaust denier.

Griffith has a whole website dedicated to arguing that the South was justified in seceding from the Union. And that it wasn’t over slavery but largely for other reasons, like the High Tariff, which didn’t exist at that time.

I, on the other hand made a one line joke about Mantik and Fetzer. I guess a one-line joke is the same as writing up a whole website.


Note how reluctant you are to provide a link to my original post. So that others can easily check out your claim. I shall rectify that for you:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2622.0.html

Now, my relevant quote:

Quote
In Dr. David Mantik’s book:
Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK
; The “Experts” this book refers to are world renown experts like Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik who have discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes.
; Yes, Yes, I know. I can’t give Dr. Mantik all the credit for these great discoveries. Some of them were Fetzer’s.

Chapter: How the Film of the Century was Edited
          Note: Well of course the “The Wizard of Oz” was a hoax. Did he think that was all real?

Is this really a serious charge that BOTH Mantik and Fetzer denied the Holocaust? And BOTH believed that the “Wizard of Oz” portrayed real events? This is equivalent to writing up a whole website on it?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2020, 07:44:48 PM
What force carried to the left? What force carried it upwards, as we see in frame 313? Debris is sent in many directions downrange, to the left, to the right, upward, downward, from what anyone can clearly see in frame 313.

It's a 2D image.  We don't "see" debris traveling to the left.

Quote
“Ballistic expert” as in a professional ballistic expert. Who conducts scientific experiments with firearms and various targets. Who conducts these experiments in a systematic manner. Who can give testimony in courts on this technical subject of firearms. These are the ones that I refer to as ballistic experts.
And as far as I know, none of them agree with the CTers on the “impossibility” of the Single Bullet Theory.

You're moving the goalposts.  We were talking about where the Harper fragment was found, not the Single Bullet Fantasy.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2020, 07:47:57 PM
Griffith has a whole website dedicated to arguing that the South was justified in seceding from the Union.

Granted, I haven't clicked on every link, but it purports to give several different viewpoints.

Quote
I, on the other hand made a one line joke about Mantik and Fetzer. I guess a one-line joke is the same as writing up a whole website.

Oh, it was a "joke" now.  I see.

Quote
Note how reluctant you are to provide a link to my original post. So that others can easily check out your claim. I shall rectify that for you:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2622.0.html

Now, my relevant quote:

Is this really a serious charge that BOTH Mantik and Fetzer denied the Holocaust? And BOTH believed that the “Wizard of Oz” portrayed real events? This is equivalent to writing up a whole website on it?

Yeah, that was backpedaling.  Your original statement was "The 'Experts' this book refers to are world renown experts like Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik who have discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes."
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Gerry Down on July 24, 2020, 08:42:49 PM
Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik who have discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes."

Both have denied the holocaust?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on July 24, 2020, 09:37:07 PM
Both have denied the holocaust?

That wasn't John Iacoletti's statement.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 25, 2020, 12:48:14 AM
I didn’t talk about Trump. I talked about your views on the Civil War.

CTers are free to bring up subjects that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

Like Gerald Posner plagiarism on articles he wrote that had nothing to do with the assassination. These charges were true. Easy enough for a professional reporter to do. Reporters get their information from what other reporters write. There is simply not enough time for each reporter to conduct their own interviews and write the number of articles demanded of them. And what person who makes the news would be willing or able to give an interview to all the thousands of reporters who want to write about them. But a report is supposed to reword everything, so that everything is in his own worlds. In this ‘Cut and Paste’ world, I would guess Posner ran out of time and published the words of others. This is a technical violation of reporter ethics and he was fired. In any case, CTers make a big deal of this, which has nothing to do with the JFK assassination, and that’s all right.

Or John McAdams being fired for reasons that had nothing to do with his statements on the JFK assassination. But, again, it was alright for CTers to talk about this a lot. Unlike Posner, there was no justified reason for him being fired. The courts ruled that he was fired for political reasons, not because he had done anything unethical.

But, if a LNer talks about the beliefs or actions of CTers, that somehow is off topic.


George McClellan believed that slavery should be allowed to continue. So did Lincoln’s. But by January 1863, Lincoln believed it should not, where McClelland believed slavery should continue, as late as November 1964 and probably until the end of the war. So, I’m not impressed by a defense of McClellan.

But you still believe, as far as I can tell, that the South went to war over the high tariff, and not to protect slavery. This is quite false. These are not the reasons the South was giving in 1861, where they made it clear it was to protect slavery. I don’t know why anyone would ever believe they seceded because of the tariff.

In a nutshell, I believe secession is wrong for two reasons:

1.   It would tend to cause Democracies to split up. Making them more vulnerable to non-Democracies. As Lincoln made clear in his Gettysburg address, the ultimate Union cause was to ensure that the government of the people will not perish from the Earth.

2.   If Secession is a right, then it can be used by the Minority to get what it wants. It turns Democracy on its ear. In the 1850’s Democracy was turned topsy-turvy.
      The South got what it wanted against the wishes of the majority on:

a.   No railway to the west coast, uniting the country – too advantageous to the North.
b.   No Homestead Act – too advantageous to the North
c.   A Low Tariff – wanted by the South
d.   Prevent the establishment of the “Land Grant Colleges” – not wanted by the South.

The South, the minority, was getting all sorts of things they wanted, all through the threat of Secession. Many of which had seemingly nothing to do with slavery.

Once the South seceded, and secession was no longer a threat, in 1862, the majority finally got what it wanted. The building of the Transcontinental railroad. The college land grands, which started colleges, like the University of California, among others. These colleges were the key to allowing America to becoming a real-world leader in Science in the twentieth century. It has been argued that the high tariffs were the key to getting industry established in America, because, initially, they could not compete with Europe. But once allowed to get established, they could more than compete against Europe, even on a level playing field.

In any case, right or wrong, the majority should get what it wants, not the minority. The threat of secession turns this on its head.

By the way, in 1861, Congress did raise the tariffs. But this happened after the 7 states seceded. And the other 4 seceded not because of the high tariff but because of the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s call on them to supply troops, and the likely necessary for Union armies to pass through them, as they did through Pennsylvania, and indeed all northern states. High tariffs did not cause secession. Secession caused the high tariffs.

Some of your arguments are valid. Some of them are erroneous. And some of them are overly simplistic. As just one example, McClellan was very anti-slavery, but he was also a constitutionalist. He was perfectly okay with ending slavery as long as it was ended constitutionally. As long as slavery was legal, he did not feel authorized to use extra-legal means to free slaves, but he personally detested slavery.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 25, 2020, 05:38:10 PM

Some of your arguments are valid. Some of them are erroneous. And some of them are overly simplistic. As just one example, McClellan was very anti-slavery, but he was also a constitutionalist. He was perfectly okay with ending slavery as long as it was ended constitutionally. As long as slavery was legal, he did not feel authorized to use extra-legal means to free slaves, but he personally detested slavery.

My arguments are true. In 1861, the Southern stated they seceded in order to maintain slavery. Four of the seceding states stated their reasons in their “Declaration of Causes” official statements, emulating the 1776 “Declaration of Independence”.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/declarations-causes (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/declarations-causes)

There are many complaints about the Northern threat to the institution of slavery. And many complaints about Northern states exercising their own “State Rights” and passing laws that conflict with Federal Law, the “Fugitive Slave Act” of 1850.

But not once is the word ‘Tariff’ mentioned.

I assume the 7 other seceding states would have issued similar statements, but were too busy, or maybe deep down too ashamed to express their base motives in an official declaration.


It was only after 1865 that the south started to come out with “Declaration of Causes”, Version 2.0, which now gave more noble reasons for Secession. To protect States Rights. To avoid high tariffs. And slavery was a more minor issue. And until recently, these were the reasons taught in our schools. And is still being pushed by some people.



McClellan detested slavery. So did a lot of people, in both the North and South, who thought slavery should continue, as did McClellan. So, again, I am not impressed with McClellan’s views. And slavery was ended permanently though constitutional means so why should anyone complain?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 25, 2020, 07:05:53 PM
Below is one of Dr. Art Snyder’s critiques of the jet-effect and neuromuscular-reaction theories. Dr. Snyder is a former physicist at Stanford University. He received his PhD in physics from the University of Illinois. He taught physics at Indiana University before joining the staff at Stanford University. Dr. Snyder wrote this critique in 1998 in response to Gerald Posner’s arguments about JFK’s head snap in Case Closed:

Quote
The head snap refers to the backward motion of President Kennedy’s head seen in the Zapruder film. As Posner puts it, “But if the President was struck in the head by a bullet fired from the rear, then why does he jerk so violently backward on the Zapruder film which recorded the assassination? To most people, the rapid backward movement at the moment of the shot means the President was struck from the front.” Posner begins by trying to dismiss the significance of the head snap with a quote from respected forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden: “People have no conception of how real life works with bullet wounds. It’s not like Hollywood, where someone gets shot and falls over backwards.” Dr. Baden is right about people, but heads are more than an order of magnitude lighter than a person. The velocity imparted to a head by a stopping bullet is given by conservation of momentum:

V head = V bullet (M bullet/M head)

where V is velocity and M is mass. For a 10 gm bullet moving at 550 meter/sec hitting a 5 kg head, this is -1 meter sec, or to put it another way ~2.4 inches per Zapruder frame.

Having used Dr. Baden to dismiss the possibility that a bullet strike could cause head motion, Posner twists around and in the next paragraph notes that Itek Corporation, using a “computer enhancement” (Itek, 1975), discovered that JFK “first jerked forward 2.3 inches before starting his rapid movement backward.” Itek did not “discover” this forward motion. Cal-Tech physicist Richard Feynman noticed it in 1966 when David Lifton showed him the Zapruder frames published in Life (Lifton, 1980, 48). Warren critic Josiah Thompson published measurements made on black and white copies in the 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas (Thompson, 1967, 90).

The measurements of Itek and Thompson are almost inconsistent with a shot from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The motion is so large that nearly all the momentum of the bullet is needed to account for it. However, quantitatively Thompson and Itek were mistaken. The apparent motion between Zapruder frames Z312 and Z313 is an artifact of the blurring of frame Z313. This is not to say that JFK’s head did not move forward between frames Z312 and Z313, but that the Z313 blur obscures the motion so that it cannot be measured using these frames. The actual forward motion (~0.3 meter/sec) can be estimated by comparing Z312 to Z314. It is about 1/3 the value obtained using the Itek or Thompson measurements—consistent with a Carcano bullet imparting ~1/3 its momentum and ~1/2 its energy.

What is the purpose of Posner’s dance around the forward motion? He trots out Dr. Baden to deny that the direction of motion tells us anything, then uses the observed forward motion to verify a shot from the rear. None of this explains why the head went backward ~100 msec later.

An explanation for the backward proposed by Nobel Laurette Luis Alvarez, in his 1976 article in the American Journal of Physics. Posner’s description of Alvarez’s work is ludicrous:

“Dubbed the ‘jet effect,’ Alvarez established it both through physical experiments that recreated the head shot and extensive laboratory calculations. He found when the brain and blood tissue exploded out of JFK’s head, they carried more momentum than was brought in by the bullet—in an opposite direction—as a rocket does when its jet fuel is ejected.”

The “recreation” of the head shot consisted of shooting 2-3 pound melons wrapped in strapping tape with the wrong gun (30.06) and the wrong ammunition (hunting instead of jacketed military ammunition). The “extensive laboratory calculations” consisted of a “back of the envelope calculation” Alvarez did in his hotel room at the 1969 meeting of the American Physical Society in St. Louis (Alvarez, 1976, 819). The calculation demonstrates that the jet-effect is kinematically allowed. It does not establish that ejected material “carried more momentum than was brought in by the bullet,” but only that this is possible.

The possibility of the jet-effect arises from the relationship between kinetic energy and momentum:

P=/2ME

Where P is momentum, M is mass and E is kinetic energy. If a large enough mass is ejected, it can carry more momentum than the income bullet deposits using only a fraction of the bullet’s energy. For example, if 0.2 kg of material were expelled carrying 10% of the bullet’s energy, it would carry a 7.8 kg-m/sec of momentum—enough to overcome the maximum possible momentum a Carcano bullet can deposit (6 kg-m/sec). Kinematics allows jet-effect to occur but only the detailed interaction of the bullet with the target determines if it actually occurs under a given set of circumstances.

Alvarez’s melon shooting experiment demonstrated that there are circumstances under which the jet-effect occurs. Dr. J.K. Lattimer (1980) did experiments using the correct rifle and ammunition. Lattimer claimed his targets—whether skulls or melons—“always” went backwards. Edgewood Arsenal did experiments on skulls (Edgewood 1964; HSCA, Vol. 1, 404). All skulls shot by Edgewood moved away from the shooter [i.e., they moved in the same direction the bullet was traveling].

Since the publication of Case Closed, there have been by Dr. Doug DeSalles and Dick Hobbs (DeSalles and Hobbs, 1994) and by us (Snyder, 1996). DeSalles and Hobbs shot tape-wrapped melons using a Carcano rifle and jacketed ammunition. In 11 shots they saw no jet-effect. In 1996 we undertook the resolve the apparent discrepancy. We shot a variety of melons with two different guns (30.06 and Carcano) and both jacketed and soft-nosed hunting ammunition. The results were surprisingly simple: Hunting bullets produced a jet-effect. Jacketed bullets did not produce a jet-effect. . . .

In his explanation of the head snap, Posner employs, in addition to the jet-effect, a so-called “neuromuscular spasm.” His full explanation might be described as jet-assisted neuromuscular spasm. Posner writes, “First, when the bullet destroyed the President’s cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurological impulses from the injured brain down the spine to every muscle in the body.”

The authority for this statement is the House Select Committee on Assassinations forensic pathology panel. The HSCA is not as definite as Posner: “The panel further recognizes the possibility of the body stiffening, with an upward and backward lunge, which might have resulted from a massive downward rush of neurologic stimuli to all efferent nerves” (HSCA, 1979, 174-175).

The HSCA also suggested that “decerebrate rigidity” or DR as described by Sherrington (1898) “could contribute to the President’s backward motion.” No practicing neurologist or neuro-scientist testified that DR or a “massive downward rush of neurologic stimuli” could explain the head snap. DR is due to the absence of nerve signals that keep opposed muscles in equilibrium rather than “a massive discharge of neurologic impulses.” Since JFK is positioned facing to the left at the moment of the fatal head shot, any “upward and backward lunge,” whatever its cause, would have pushed JFK to the right, not the left.

The HSCA also noticed that “such decerebrate rigidity as Sherrington described usually does not commence for several minutes after separation of the upper brain centers from the brain stem and spinal cord,” but included DR in their stew of possibilities anyway (HSCA, Vol. 7, 174). (“Case Open: Skepticism and the Assassination of JFK,” Skeptic, volume 6, number 4, 1998, pp. 52-54. NOTE: I was unable to duplicate some of the math symbols, so I used to closest approximation that my keyboard offered.)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 26, 2020, 03:06:27 AM

Below is one of Dr. Art Snyder’s critiques of the jet-effect and neuromuscular-reaction theories. Dr. Snyder is a former physicist at Stanford University. He received his PhD in physics from the University of Illinois. He taught physics at Indiana University before joining the staff at Stanford University. Dr. Snyder wrote this critique in 1998 in response to Gerald Posner’s arguments about JFK’s head snap in Case Closed:

Quote
. . .
The measurements of Itek and Thompson are almost inconsistent with a shot from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The motion is so large that nearly all the momentum of the bullet is needed to account for it. However, quantitatively Thompson and Itek were mistaken. The apparent motion between Zapruder frames Z312 and Z313 is an artifact of the blurring of frame Z313. This is not to say that JFK’s head did not move forward between frames Z312 and Z313, but that the Z313 blur obscures the motion so that it cannot be measured using these frames. The actual forward motion (~0.3 meter/sec) can be estimated by comparing Z313 to Z314. It is about 1/3 the value obtained using the Itek or Thompson measurements—consistent with a Carcano bullet imparting ~1/3 its momentum and ~1/2 its energy.
. . .

Dr. Snyder’s analysis is illogical. He claims that frame z313 is too blurry to get an accurate measure of how much the head moved forward between z312 and the blurry z313. Dr. Snyder’s solution? Compare the blurry z313 with z314.

If I may help out the confused Dr. Snyder, I think he meant to say that one should compare the non-blurry z312 with the non-blurry z314. I don’t know if this is necessary, but at least it’s a logical idea.


In addition, Dr. Snyder is just flat wrong that the WCC/MC bullet needs nearly all its momentum to push the head the amount reported by Itek.

I found some estimates of the mass of the human head as being 8 pounds, about 4 kilograms. I decided to make my own estimates. And I am sorry to report to the CTers of this forum that I did not do this by cutting my own head off but by measuring the circumference of my head. Both horizontally and vertically (over the top and under the chin). Assuming the same density of water (perhaps the density of bone is balanced by the sinuses) I came up with an estimate of 4.6 kilograms.

Doing some calculations, I find that moving a 4.6-kilogram mass forward with the momentum of a WCC/MC bullet going 1900 f/s, gives a calculated velocity of 1.3 meters per second. The observed Itek motion (which I recall was 2.1 inches) was 0.98 meters per second. So only about 75% of the momentum is needed, according to these calculations.

Further, there is no need to assume the entire head moved forward 2.1 inches. More likely, the head rotated forward, with the upper part of the head moving forward about 2.1 inches, and the lower part less.

All and all, by a rough estimate, only about half the momentum of the bullet is needed to move the head the observed amount in 55 milliseconds. This is inline with Ballistic Expert Larry Sturdivan’s estimate.

In actual truth, a WCC/MC bullet does have enough momentum to move JFK’s head forward about 2 inches in 55 milliseconds and still have enough momentum for its fragments to crack the windshield, dent the windshield frame, and slightly wound Mr. Tague. It is curious that the calculations are consistent with this hypothesis, as if this is exactly what happened.


By the way, my estimates and calculations:

•   Rough circumference of the head 60 to 70 cm, call it 65 cm.
•   Using the calculations for a sphere, volume of the head 4,600 cubic centimeters
•   Mass of the head 4.6 kilograms
•   Mass of the bullet 161 grains or 10.4 grams
•   Velocity of the bullet, 1900 f/s or 579 meters per second
•   Calculated velocity of the head after having 100% of the bullet’s momentum transferred, 1.31 meters per second
•   Observed velocity of the head in the Itek study, a movement of 2.1 inches in 55 milliseconds, or 0.98 meters per second

And this does not account for the head nodding forward, and not having the entire head move a full 2.1 inches forward.


And by the way, I would expect a real professional physicist to provide the basis of his calculations, as I did (a former high school physics student), like the estimated mass of the head, mass of the bullet, velocity of the bullet, calculated velocity of the head and the observed velocity of the head, and not just state “almost all the momentum is required”, with no numbers to back him up. Perhaps Dr. Snyder was having an off day.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 26, 2020, 08:33:33 PM
From what I’ve seen, the WC apologists who post in this forum will never admit the validity of any fact or conclusion that refutes the lone-gunman theory, even if the evidence for that fact or conclusion is clear and compelling.

The 6.5 mm object on the autopsy AP skull x-ray is a good example of this refusal to acknowledge a fact and the conclusions that the fact clearly demands.

Obviously, the 6.5 mm object was planted on the AP x-ray after the autopsy in order to make it seem as though a 6.5 mm fragment had been deposited on the outer table of the skull, and in order to pad the case against Oswald, since Oswald allegedly used 6.5 mm ammo.

Scientifically, this is the only explanation that makes sense. We know from optical density measurements performed independently by three medical doctors that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it is a ghosted image that was placed over the image of a small authentic fragment on the outer table of the skull at the rear of the skull. Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist with a PhD in physics, has demonstrated how the object could have been placed on the AP x-ray using technology that was available at the time of the autopsy.

We also now know that the autopsy doctors each separately insisted to the ARRB that they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the night of the autopsy. They studied the x-rays carefully during the autopsy, since they were trying to find bullet fragments and recover them from the skull. The radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. John Ebersole, and the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, did not see the 6.5 mm object either.

The fact that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic is made especially clear by the fact that in order to have come from the alleged fatal head bullet, it would have to be from the cross-section of a full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullet, since the nose and tail of that bullet were supposedly found in the limousine. Forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet has behaved in this manner. This fact is what led former HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan to conclude that the 6.5 mm object absolutely could not be a bullet fragment.

Forensic radiologist Dr. John Fitzpatrick examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays for the ARRB. Dr. Fitzpatrick began his examination firmly believing that the autopsy materials were authentic and confident that he would prove them to be such. He was aware that some ARRB staff members believed that some of the autopsy materials had been altered. When he was given summaries of the research of Dr. Mantik and Dr. Robertson, he said he rejected their findings—even Dr. Mantik’s optical density measurements—because Mantik and Robertson were not forensic radiologists.

However, when Dr. Fitzpatrick examined the skull x-rays, he was profoundly disturbed by the 6.5 mm object. In fact, he extended his examination by an extra day just to study the 6.5 mm object further. He could never bring himself to call the object fake, but he observed that there was no corresponding object on the lateral skull x-rays:


Quote
No object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio-opaque object in the A-P X-Ray could be identified by the consultant on the lateral skull X-Rays. Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. After briefly speculating that the small metallic density behind the right eye in the lateral X-Rays might correspond to the bright radio-opaque density in the A-P X-Ray, this idea was abandoned because neither the locations nor the density/brightness of the 2 objects are consistent. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/96, Independent Review of JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs By Outside Consultant-Forensic Radiologist, p. 2, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=225)

When Dr. Fitzpatrick met with ARRB staffers the day after he finished his examination of the autopsy x-rays, he remained troubled by the 6.5 mm object. He said the object “almost” looked like it had been “machined off” or “cut off” a bullet. He even floated the implausible speculation that the fragment had dropped off the skull before the lateral skull x-rays were made:

Quote
The following day, February 7, 1996, Dr. Fitzpatrick met with ARRB staff. . . .

He continued to be disturbed and puzzled by the fact that the large radio-opaque object in the A-P skull X-Ray could not be located on the lateral skull X-Rays. At one point he speculated that perhaps this fragment fell off of the President’s body before the lateral X-Rays were taken. He opined that the 6.5 mm radio-opaque object in the A-P skull X-Ray looked “almost as if it had been machined off, or cut off of a bullet.” (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/96, p. 4)

Since Dr. Fitzpatrick was ardently determined not to even allow for the possibility that the autopsy x-rays had been altered, he never resolved the conflict between the AP and lateral x-rays regarding the 6.5 mm object. He never ventured to put in writing an explanation for why the 6.5 mm object does not appear on the lateral x-rays, which it would do if it were a bullet fragment. Nor did Dr. Fitzpatrick make any attempt to explain Dr. Mantik’s multiple sets of optical density measurements of the 6. 5 mm object, even though he was made aware of them and was also advised that Dr. Mantik held a PhD in physics. But he should be given credit for at least being willing to identify this striking conflict in the autopsy evidence.

Dr. Fitzpatrick's refusal to acknowledge that the 6.5 mm object is fake and cannot be a bullet fragment is a good example of what happens when you believe something so ardently, so passionately that you cannot abandon that belief even when you stare straight at clear, hard physical evidence that your belief is wrong.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 27, 2020, 08:24:44 AM

From what I’ve seen, the WC apologists who post in this forum will never admit the validity of any fact or conclusion that refutes the lone-gunman theory, even if the evidence for that fact or conclusion is clear and compelling.

The 6.5 mm object on the autopsy AP skull x-ray is a good example of this refusal to acknowledge a fact and the conclusions that the fact clearly demands.

Obviously, the 6.5 mm object was planted on the AP x-ray after the autopsy in order to make it seem as though a 6.5 mm fragment had been deposited on the outer table of the skull, and in order to pad the case against Oswald, since Oswald allegedly used 6.5 mm ammo.

No, this is not obvious or compelling.

The object does not look like a bullet fragment. Why would conspirators plant evidence that does not look like a bullet fragment?

They make it look like the bullet passed all the way through the head. There is an entrance would and an exit wound (well really an explosive wound). They plant fragments in the car that make it appear the fragments exited the head. They damage the windshield frame and the windshield, to make it look list the fragments not only left the head but did so at great speed.

And then they decided to plant a fake fragment that doesn’t even look like a fragment? Why do this? Why would some fragments exit the head at great speed, dent the frame, crack the windshield and possibly wound Mr. Tague, while another sizeable fragment stays behind in the head? Why would the conspirators think that this would be a good idea?

And only do this for one X-Ray but not the others, to make it look like the ‘fragment’ magically disappeared? Why would they do this?


None of this makes sense. What does make sense? An object fell onto the head. Maybe out of someone’s pocket. They took an X-Ray without noticing the object. Before the next X-Ray, someone spotted the object and removed it. They knew it didn’t belong there. That is why this “object” only appears in one X-Ray. What was this object? It is impossible to tell from the X-Ray.

Is this really true? Impossible to say, but at least, this is a sensible hypothesis.


If this is evidence of a planted object in the head, or doctoring just one of the X-Rays, this doesn’t make sense. Did the conspirators plant the object, take an X-Ray, figured that is good enough and remove the object and took the rest of the X-Rays? Or did they ‘doctor’ one X-Ray, figured that was good enough, and didn’t bother doctoring the other X-Rays to be consistent?

None of this makes any sense, let along provides “compelling evidence”.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 27, 2020, 04:59:19 PM

Planting a “6.5 mm” circular object to appear in an X-Ray does not make sense for the following reasons:

1.   First, it should be noted that one cannot reliably measure the size of an object in an X-Ray. The closer the object is to the source of the X-Rays, the larger it will appear. We really don’t know if the object really had a diameter of “6.5 mm”, or under 6 mm, or over 7 mm. Its apparent size is affected by whether it was resting on the outside on the near side of the head, or the far side, or somewhere in the middle.

2.   Second, planting such an object does not implicate Oswald. Lots of bullets are of that size. It is impossible to use an X-Ray of a bullet to identify it being fired from Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world, or even to identify it as a WCC/MC bullet, particularly when viewed “Lengthwise’.

3.   No need to implicate Oswald in this way, since as I recall one or both of the recovered large fragments from the head shot, and certainly CE-399, provided the evidence that they were fired from Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. X-Rays are never used to prove this.

4.   The evidence shows, or were made to show, that at least two and probably three large fragments exited the head at a high speed. As evident from the large dent in the windshield frame and crack in the windshield. Why would a fourth large fragment remain in the skull? Does it make sense that the head would slow some large fragments by 950 feet per second and others by 1900 feet per second? Tiny fragments can be stopped by the head. They have a large surface area relative to mass. But large fragments? A quarter of an inch across? Why would the ‘fakers’ think that some large fragments would be stopped in the head while others wouldn’t and would exit at great speed.

5.   Why only have the fake evidence show up in only one X-Ray? Did they put the object in the head, take an X-Ray, figured that was good enough, remove it, and then take the rest of the X-Rays? Doctor one X-Ray, figured that was good enough and left the rest alone?

6.   Why plant an object that doesn’t look like a fragment of a bullet? A bullet would only look like that if it was not damaged, remained totally intact, stayed in the skull, and just happened to be X-Rayed lengthwise. But the other evidence, the presence of both entrance and exit wounds, the damage to the limousine’s windshield frame and windshield, show that didn’t happen.


Some other explanation must be true. People carry all sorts of objects in their pockets. Objects about a quarter of an inch across, and disk shaped, are pretty common. Would a breath mint show up? An Antacid? An Antacid commonly contains calcium, doesn’t it? That should show up in an X-Ray, I would think. Aspirin tablets are commonly that size. And pills, in general, or often disk shape to make them easy to shallow. Just a few possibilities. While moving and positioning the body for the X-Rays, something unnoticed might fall out and get X-Rayed. The technicians may then spot it, remove it and continue with their work. They might believe that the object would not shown in an X-Ray. In any case they needed to move things along so the Kennedy family can be allowed to leave with the body.

Speculation? Yes. As is speculating conspirators planted an object that makes no sense.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 28, 2020, 01:57:47 AM
Another fact that should be mentioned is that all of the Parkland doctors’ treatment reports, written on the day of the assassination, described the large wound as being in the back of the head, using the terms “posterior,” “occipital,” and “occipital-parietal” to describe its location. Significantly, the treatment reports also state that there was considerable damage to the cerebellum and cerebellar tissue missing. This is crucial for two reasons: One, cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head, on the lower half of the back of the head. Two, cerebellar tissue is easily distinguished from other brain tissue.

In his video Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence, Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB, presents the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB by medical personnel and federal agents who got good, close, prolonged looks at JFK’s large head wound.

Horne also discusses the fact that two federal agents (Sibert and O’Neill) disputed the accuracy of autopsy photo F3, which shows the back of the head intact, when interviewed by the ARRB, and that Dr. John Ebersole also challenged the accuracy of the photo when interviewed by the HSCA. The fact that Ebersole challenged the photo was not known until the ARRB released the HSCA interview reports. Horne discusses the fact that in 2006 we learned that Dr. Robert O. Canada, who was the commanding officer of the treatment hospital at Bethesda Naval Hospital and who witnessed the autopsy, told historian Michael Kurtz that he saw a “very large, 3-5 cm wound in the right rear of the President’s head, in the lower right occipital region,” and that the wound was “clearly an exit wound.” Additionally, Horne reviews the evidence about the Harper fragment.

The discussion about these items and much more begins at 49:55 (the discussion runs about 20 minutes):

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/


In Part 3, Horne presents an in-depth look at the scientific evidence that the autopsy x-rays and brain photos have been altered. By the way, Dr. Mantik took optical density measurements of the skull x-rays because those measurements are a key tool in radiation oncology, which is Dr. Mantik's field of specialization (he's a radiation oncologist). Horne's presentation of the scientific evidence is especially good because he explains the more technical points in layman's terms so that the average person can understand the evidence and can grasp just how powerful the evidence is. He also explains how the x-rays were altered.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-3/
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 29, 2020, 03:12:54 PM
Dr. Snyder’s analysis is illogical. He claims that frame z313 is too blurry to get an accurate measure of how much the head moved forward between z312 and the blurry z313. Dr. Snyder’s solution? Compare the blurry z313 with z314.

If I may help out the confused Dr. Snyder, I think he meant to say that one should compare the non-blurry z312 with the non-blurry z314. I don’t know if this is necessary, but at least it’s a logical idea.

In addition, Dr. Snyder is just flat wrong that the WCC/MC bullet needs nearly all its momentum to push the head the amount reported by Itek.

I found some estimates of the mass of the human head as being 8 pounds, about 4 kilograms. I decided to make my own estimates. And I am sorry to report to the CTers of this forum that I did not do this by cutting my own head off but by measuring the circumference of my head. Both horizontally and vertically (over the top and under the chin). Assuming the same density of water (perhaps the density of bone is balanced by the sinuses) I came up with an estimate of 4.6 kilograms.

Doing some calculations, I find that moving a 4.6-kilogram mass forward with the momentum of a WCC/MC bullet going 1900 f/s, gives a calculated velocity of 1.3 meters per second. The observed Itek motion (which I recall was 2.1 inches) was 0.98 meters per second. So only about 75% of the momentum is needed, according to these calculations.

Further, there is no need to assume the entire head moved forward 2.1 inches. More likely, the head rotated forward, with the upper part of the head moving forward about 2.1 inches, and the lower part less.

All and all, by a rough estimate, only about half the momentum of the bullet is needed to move the head the observed amount in 55 milliseconds. This is inline with Ballistic Expert Larry Sturdivan’s estimate.

In actual truth, a WCC/MC bullet does have enough momentum to move JFK’s head forward about 2 inches in 55 milliseconds and still have enough momentum for its fragments to crack the windshield, dent the windshield frame, and slightly wound Mr. Tague. It is curious that the calculations are consistent with this hypothesis, as if this is exactly what happened.

By the way, my estimates and calculations:

•   Rough circumference of the head 60 to 70 cm, call it 65 cm.
•   Using the calculations for a sphere, volume of the head 4,600 cubic centimeters
•   Mass of the head 4.6 kilograms
•   Mass of the bullet 161 grains or 10.4 grams
•   Velocity of the bullet, 1900 f/s or 579 meters per second
•   Calculated velocity of the head after having 100% of the bullet’s momentum transferred, 1.31 meters per second
•   Observed velocity of the head in the Itek study, a movement of 2.1 inches in 55 milliseconds, or 0.98 meters per second

And this does not account for the head nodding forward, and not having the entire head move a full 2.1 inches forward.

And by the way, I would expect a real professional physicist to provide the basis of his calculations, as I did (a former high school physics student), like the estimated mass of the head, mass of the bullet, velocity of the bullet, calculated velocity of the head and the observed velocity of the head, and not just state “almost all the momentum is required”, with no numbers to back him up. Perhaps Dr. Snyder was having an off day.

Or perhaps all of your irrelevant, diversionary nitpicking does not lay a finger on any of Dr. Snyder's points. You really show yourself to be a blind, diehard, unreachable partisan when you stoop to questioning the competence of recognized, genuine scientists just because they don't buy the lone-gunman theory.

I notice you said nothing about the ballistics tests that he and Dr. DeSalles did, both of which showed that jacketed ammo does not produce a jet effect.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that good ole Dr. Lattimer claimed that in his ballistics test, the target objects were propelled toward the gun every single time, a result that nobody has ever seen or claimed to have seen in any other test.

I notice you said nothing about Dr. Snyder's points regarding the neuromuscular-reaction theory, such as his point, which other scholars have also made, that "since JFK is positioned facing to the left at the moment of the fatal head shot, any 'upward and backward lunge,' whatever its cause, would have pushed JFK to the right, not the left."

And I notice you said nothing about Dr. Snyder's point that after spending many paragraphs trying to prove that the motion of the head tells us nothing about the direction the bullet was traveling, Posner spins around and argues that the forward motion of the skull indicates a shot from the rear.

I should mention that Dr. Snyder did say that he was comparing Z312 to Z314. I mistyped 312 as 313. I've corrected this in the post.


(https://miketgriffith.com/files/snyderquote.jpg)

And now to some of your comments about the 6.5 mm object:[/size]

Some other explanation must be true. People carry all sorts of objects in their pockets.

Yes, yes, there just "must" be some other explanation, instead of the obvious, scientifically demonstrated one.

Objects about a quarter of an inch across, and disk shaped, are pretty common. Would a breath mint show up? An Antacid? An Antacid commonly contains calcium, doesn’t it? That should show up in an X-Ray, I would think. Aspirin tablets are commonly that size. And pills, in general, or often disk shape to make them easy to shallow. Just a few possibilities. While moving and positioning the body for the X-Rays, something unnoticed might fall out and get X-Rayed. The technicians may then spot it, remove it and continue with their work. They might believe that the object would not shown in an X-Ray. In any case they needed to move things along so the Kennedy family can be allowed to leave with the body.

LOL!  So it has come to this?!  You are reduced to theorizing that Humes, Boswell, or Ebersole, for some reason, was holding an antacid or breath mint tablet during this part of the autopsy and accidentally dropped it under JFK's head, without anyone noticing, before the AP x-ray was taken!  Or, that someone else somehow dropped a pill under JFK's head and nobody noticed it!  And by amazing coincidence, the pill/tablet just happened to be 6.5 mm wide and thus became the largest "fragment" in the skull x-rays!!!  Yet, somehow, this pill or tablet appears only as a tiny fragment on the lateral skull x-rays!!!  This is the kind of silliness you must employ when you won't allow yourself to reach the obvious, logical, scientifically documented conclusion.

Let us review some facts about the scientific evidence of alteration in the autopsy skull x-rays:

* The 6.5 mm object is impossible to miss on the AP x-ray. It is the largest and brightest object on the x-ray. In fact, it is even brighter than JFK's fillings. That means it should be the densest "fragment," denser than the metallic fillings in JFK's death, but it is not. Think about that.

* The 6.5 mm object has no density itself, even though it is brighter than the dental fillings. Its only actual density comes from the small genuine fragment over which it was placed. So the object cannot be a pill or tablet or any other physical object. It is a ghosted image.  Three medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed this fact with optical density (OD) measurements and via direct analysis of the object. It first occurred to Dr. Mantik to measure the object in this way because he uses OD measurements frequently in his work as a radiation oncologist.

* Dr. Mantik did OD measurements on comparison x-rays with genuine cross-sections from 6.5 mm bullets to act as control measurements for the OD measurements of the 6.5 mm object. The two sets of OD measurements are drastically different.

* Dr. Mantik found that with only modest magnification, one can clearly see the small genuine fragment inside/through the 6.5 mm object, precisely because the object is a ghosted image.

* The images of the 6.5 mm object are spatially compatible on the AP and lateral x-rays, even though the object is far larger and brighter on the AP view, which rules out the idea that the object is some kind of accidental artifact.

* The strange bright patch on the right-rear part of the head in the two lateral skull x-rays transmits 1,100 times more light than does the frontal region of the skull, which is a physical impossibility for a genuine x-ray. On a normal x-ray, the brightest part of the white region would only transmit 2-3 times more light than the frontal region. Even on other parts of the skull, on a normal x-ray the brightest area will be no more than 2-3 times brighter than the darkest area.

* OD measurements done on the same regions on undisputed JFK x-rays made in 1960 are wildly different from the OD measurements done on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays, which is a physical impossibility unless the autopsy x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Chesser notes,


Quote
In the lower occipital-temporal area a fracture terminates when it runs into the “white patch,” an area of the skull which appears impossibly dense compared to the same region on the skull x-ray taken in 1960. (https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf)



Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 30, 2020, 03:06:20 AM

I notice you said nothing about the ballistics tests that he and Dr. DeSalles did, both of which showed that jacketed ammo does not produce a jet effect.

Irrelevant because while the jet effect sometimes causes targets to move in the opposite direction of the bullet, this did not happen in the case of JFK. So, I will ignore arguments against the ‘Jet Effect’ because I do not believe in the ‘Jet Effect’, in this case.



I notice you said nothing about the fact that good ole Dr. Lattimer claimed that in his ballistics test, the target objects were propelled toward the gun every single time, a result that nobody has ever seen or claimed to have seen in any other test.

You did not provide Dr Lattimer’s exact quote but I assume he was talking about this occurring with every test that he observed. And not a claim for every target ever hit by a rifle bullet.



I notice you said nothing about Dr. Snyder's points regarding the neuromuscular-reaction theory, such as his point, which other scholars have also made, that "since JFK is positioned facing to the left at the moment of the fatal head shot, any 'upward and backward lunge,' whatever its cause, would have pushed JFK to the right, not the left."

Which it may have during z312-z313. In the Zapruder film, and films in general, we can’t measure radial velocities, velocities to (JFK’s) left or right, very accurately. Only ‘tangential velocities’, velocities forward or backwards. And also, up or down. At least, not during just one frame interval. After z313, the motion of the body was governed by the ballistic neuromuscular spasm. So, JFK’s head may have been pushed to the left or right briefly before his muscles took over.




And now to some of your comments about the 6.5 mm object:[/size]

Yes, yes, there just "must" be some other explanation, instead of the obvious, scientifically demonstrated one.

LOL!  So it has come to this?!  You are reduced to theorizing that Humes, Boswell, or Ebersole, for some reason, was holding an antacid or breath mint tablet during this part of the autopsy and accidentally dropped it under JFK's head, without anyone noticing, before the AP x-ray was taken!  Or, that someone else somehow dropped a pill under JFK's head and nobody noticed it!  And by amazing coincidence, the pill/tablet just happened to be 6.5 mm wide and thus became the largest "fragment" in the skull x-rays!!!  Yet, somehow, this pill or tablet appears only as a tiny fragment on the lateral skull x-rays!!!  This is the kind of silliness you must employ when you won't allow yourself to reach the obvious, logical, scientifically documented conclusion.

I don’t know if you should be telling me what is a logical scientific conclusion is when you don’t believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Never-the-less, you claim that the logical scientific conclusion is that that this fragment was planted, even though:

•   The evidence indicates all the sizeable fragments (a quarter of an inch wide) exited the head at high velocity. Why would the conspirators think one of the large fragments should remain in the head?
•   Only the approximate size of this ‘fragment’ is known. Why did the conspirators think this would implicate Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles? This could never be done with an X-Ray.
•   Why does this ‘fragment’ not look anything like a real bullet fragment?

As far my hypothesis being a ‘goofy’ theory that something fell out of a technician’s pocket, well, we know something ‘goofy’ did happen.

Either something fell out of a technician’s pocket, and nobody noticed it immediately. That is a little goofy.

Or, conspirators planted something, that does not look like a bullet fragment, that should not have ended up resting in the head, that does not implicate Oswald’s rifle, and only did so for one X-Ray, but then removed it for the remaining X-Rays. That would be unbelievable goofy.

The logical explanation was the CTers got lucky. An object fell out of someone’s pocket and ended up in on of the X-Rays. The object did not look like a bullet fragment, but CTers had to make the most of it they could.

The object was round. Good, bullets are round too. At lease pristine bullets are. Well, at least when viewed through the axis of it. Of course, bullet fragments don’t look round, but you have to work with what you are given.

The object was roughly a quarter of a inch wide. Good. They could claim it was precisely 6.5 mm wide, although this is impossible to measure precisely with an X-Ray. The apparent size depends on how exact distance of the object from the X-Ray source. But, no matter. They could just claim it was exactly 6.5 mm across.

The misfortune for CTers, is that people don’t carry things that look like bullet fragments in their pockets. But they do carry a host of other things. Like pills that are often round and about a quarter of an inch across.



Let us review some facts about the scientific evidence of alteration in the autopsy skull x-rays:

* The 6.5 mm object is impossible to miss on the AP x-ray. It is the largest and brightest object on the x-ray. In fact, it is even brighter than JFK's fillings. That means it should be the densest "fragment," denser than the metallic fillings in JFK's death, but it is not. Think about that.

* The 6.5 mm object has no density itself, even though it is brighter than the dental fillings. Its only actual density comes from the small genuine fragment over which it was placed. So the object cannot be a pill or tablet or any other physical object. It is a ghosted image.  Three medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed this fact with optical density (OD) measurements and via direct analysis of the object. It first occurred to Dr. Mantik to measure the object in this way because he uses OD measurements frequently in his work as a radiation oncologist.

If this is all true, why did the conspirators only modify one X-Ray? Why didn’t they modify all the X-Rays, so this ‘ghost’ object would appear in all of them, which it should, if the conspirators wanted people to think it was a real fragment.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 30, 2020, 05:38:57 AM

Just a couple of points about the so called “6.5 mm” fragment image seen in just one X-Ray.

1.   I am guessing here, but I suppose that before the autopsy was done, they took the X-Rays first. I don’t think they would do the autopsy, removed the shattered skull and the brain, and then make the X-Rays. They would make the X-Rays first. The second thing I would guess, is that it is unusual for bodies to arrive in a big heavy coffin, like JFK did. JFK was placed in a big heavy coffin much earlier than most murder victims are because he was the President, and they wanted to maintain the dignity of the office.

Usually the bodies they receive would be shipped on a stretcher, with the body totally covered in sheets or a body bag. The body doesn’t get placed into a big heavy coffin until later, just before the body needs to be made ready for the funeral and burial.

So, the procedures would have been a bit unique that evening. They would have to bend over a lot more than usual to remove the body from a big heavy coffin. The technicians might have to bend over more and put more effort in removing the body from the coffin, to get the body on a stretcher which could be easily transferred around for making X-Rays and doing an autopsy. So, in this unusual setting, something unusual might happen. An object might fall out of a pocket, that usually would not fall out of a pocket, with the typical bodies that they receive.

An unusual change in procedures can cause unexpected events.



2.   If someone claimed, in a collection of paintings, that one of those paintings was a forgery, a painting made to look like the work of Rembrandt, and this was done so they could make a lot of money by selling a ‘Rembrandt’.

Question: What is the minimum I would need to make me accept this claim may be true?
Answer: It would have to look like a Rembrandt.

The painting in question can’t look like a Picasso, with offset eyes and weird psychedelic colors. It has to look like a Rembrandt. So, if you want me to accept it’s a forgery of a Picasso, great. But if you insist it’s a forgery of a Rembrandt, forget it. I will never be convinced.



Now someone claims this image in the X-Ray is faked to look like a fragment of a bullet from Oswald’s rifle.

Question: What is the minimum I would need to make me accept this claim may be true?
Answer: It would have to look like a bullet fragment.

It can’t look like something else. It can’t look like a common object someone might carry around in their pocket. It has to look like a bullet fragment.

Say that the conspirators wanted it to appear that President Kennedy carried an aspirin tablet inside his head, well, at least the evidence is consistent with this strange hypothesis. But to convince me it was planted to look like a bullet fragment? No. I’m not buying that.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 30, 2020, 04:49:24 PM
Regardless of what you think it looks like, why would Jerrol Custer be instructed to tape bullet fragments to pieces of skull and then to x-ray them?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 30, 2020, 06:18:57 PM
You can tell from their replies that lone-gunman theorists here still do not understand why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP autopsy skull x-ray. The object was added not only to implicate Oswald but (1) to discredit the rear head entry wound described by the autopsy doctors and (2) to provide a superficial basis for future cooperative experts to place the rear head entry wound a whopping 10 cm/4 inches higher on the back of the head, which is exactly what the Clark Panel and the HSCA later did.

Clearly, at least some of the people running the cover-up recognized very quickly that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was very problematic for the lone-gunman tale. The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report that the wound was “slightly above” and 2.5 cm/1 inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). The EOP is the bump in the middle of the lower part of the back of the head.

Since a bullet fired from the alleged sniper’s window would have struck JFK’s head at a markedly downward angle (at least 15 degrees), JFK would have had to be leaning far forward to enable that bullet to exit at a location that was above the entry point and that was in the right parietal region.

Equally important, if not more important, the autopsy doctors said they identified the rear entry wound based on skull fragments that were brought to the autopsy late that night, and that part of the entry wound was contained in one of those fragments. This, of course, meant that some occipital bone had been blasted out of the skull, but the back-of-the-head autopsy photo shows no such damage. Also, an occipital bone fragment with part of any entry wound in it could lead to the logical inference that a bullet struck the occiput and then a second bullet struck the front of the head and blew out part of the occiput.

So for these two reasons—the trajectory issue and the occipital-bone-fragment issue—the autopsy/EOP rear head entry wound had to be ditched and discredited.

By sometime on Sunday, 11/24/63, some of the conspirators had seen the Zapruder film. Thanks partly to the ARRB, we now know that the Zapruder film was diverted to the CIA’s NPIC photo center and then to the CIA-contracted Kodak lab in Rochester, New York, on 11/23 and 11/24. We know that two different sets of briefing boards were made at NPIC by two separate photo analyst teams. The briefing boards were different because the second set was based on the altered Zapruder film that came back to NPIC from the Rochester lab. You can read all about this in Doug Horne’s article, which is based on ARRB research and follow-up research:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film knows that it does not show Kennedy leaning far enough forward when the head shot strikes to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP and through the right parietal area.

Thus, the rear head entry wound had to be moved, and moved substantially, even if it meant making the autopsy doctors look like bumbling idiots. After all, how could anyone “mistake” a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm/4 inches lower, especially when they had two prominent features to use as reference points (the hairline and the EOP)?

In 1968, the Clark Panel announced that the rear entry wound was nowhere near the EOP but was in the cowlick, 10 cm/4 inches higher than the site described in the autopsy report, and 1 cm/0.39 inches above the 6.5 mm object. The HSCA forensic pathology panel (FPP) concurred with the Clark Panel’s claim, although we now know that some of the FPP’s consultants had doubts about the higher location.

The cowlick entry wound site fits far better, though not perfectly, with the trajectory from the sixth-floor window, and it is much closer to the fragment trail that is visible on the lateral skull x-rays.

Yet, the autopsy doctors vehemently challenged the FPP on the cowlick location. To a man, each autopsy doctor ardently rejected the higher location and insisted that they had seen and handled the rear entry site and were positive that it was only a fraction of an inch above the EOP. They each indicated that it was insulting and unreasonable to suggest that they had mislocated the wound by 4 inches.

Indeed, we now know that in one incredible exchange with the HSCA, when Dr. Finck was shown the back-of-the-head photo (F3), which shows a small circular image in the cowlick that some people could interpret as a wound, Dr. Finck questioned how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy! Not surprisingly, the HSCA suppressed this exchange—we only learned about it in the 1990s, when the ARRB released most of the sealed HSCA files.

When the HSCA FPP interviewed Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, they asked him about the rear head entry wound. He replied by pointing out that a fragment of occipital bone was received at Bethesda very late that night. He also said that the back-of-the-head photo did not show the wounds in the head that he recalled seeing.

When the autopsy doctors were interviewed by the ARRB, they once again insisted that the autopsy report’s description of the rear head entry wound was accurate. In fact, Dr. Finck even told the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the EOP upward to the area of the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The only fragment trail is not only above the autopsy/EOP entry site but is above the Clark Panel/FPP/cowlick entry site.

When the FPP cited the 6.5 mm object as evidence that the bullet had struck in the cowlick, the autopsy doctors responded by saying they had seen no such fragment in the autopsy x-rays during the autopsy and that they had examined the x-rays very carefully because they were looking for fragments to retrieve from the skull.

In point of fact, the cowlick entry site is not at all clearly evident on the skull x-rays, and we now know that two of the FPP’s expert consultants had doubts about the cowlick site in the skull x-rays. In fact, Dr. Seaman said the x-rays provided no conclusive evidence of an entry site in the cowlick.

Significantly, the three radiologists who were consulted by the ARRB said they saw no indication of an entry wound in the cowlick area on the skull x-rays.

Furthermore, several private, non-government-contracted doctors—including Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr. Michael Chesser—who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photos reject the cowlick entry point and support the EOP entry site. Dr. Aguilar notes that Dr. Boswell triangulated the rear head entry wound to the EOP in a diagram he made during the autopsy. Dr. Chesser believes the entry wound was moved to get it closer to the fragment trail seen on the x-rays, which, as mentioned, is nowhere near the EOP but far above it. Of course, as Dr. Chesser notes, this fragment trail was likely caused by the frontal shot that entered the right temple, and not by a shot that entered near the EOP or in the cowlick.

The forger of the 6.5 mm object had to be careful to make sure that the object was spatially consistent with the genuine small fragment seen on the lateral skull x-rays. He did so by placing the object over the genuine fragment, which automatically ensured the object and the fragment would be spatially consistent. Dr. Mantik:


Quote
The entrepreneur who did this had to be clever, however. If he had simply placed a counterfeit image onto the AP view willy-nilly, most likely it would not have been spatially consistent on the two views. But, by using something that was already there, Mother Nature solved the problem for him. He did not bother to alter the lateral--there was no need to. All he had to do was add the fake image right over the pre-existing shrapnel that the FBI had reported. Mother Nature had already located this image on both films consistent with reality, so he had no decisions to make. (Assassination Science, p. 135, available online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 30, 2020, 08:08:20 PM

You can tell from their replies that lone-gunman theorists here still do not understand why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP autopsy skull x-ray. The object was added not only to implicate Oswald but (1) to discredit the rear head entry wound described by the autopsy doctors and (2) to provide a superficial basis for future cooperative experts to place the rear head entry wound a whopping 10 cm/4 inches higher on the back of the head, which is exactly what the Clark Panel and the HSCA later did.

Again, we don’t know if this was a 6.5 mm object. You cannot accurately estimate the size of an object in an X-Ray.

How does an X-Ray work? On one side of the head, you have an X-Ray source, that emits X-Rays from a point source. On the other side of the head is an X-Ray plate. Objects made of bone, metal and other material will cast a shadow on the X-Ray plate. If the object is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the X-Ray plate, it will cast a bigger shadow. If the same object is closer to the X-Ray place, and further from the X-Ray source, it will cast a smaller shadow.

So, if two pennies are taped to opposite sides of the head and the head is X-Rayed, the pennies will not appear to be the same size. The penny closer to the X-Ray source will appear bigger.

So, without knowing where in the head the object is, one cannot accurately know its size. One cannot tell if it was near the alleged entry wound or on the opposite side of the head. It would only be possible to say the object was near the alleged entry wound if it appeared in at least two X-Rays, showing the head from different directions. That is the only way it could be accurately placed in 3-D space.


On a separate point, if the conspirators wanted to establish a false entry location, they would need to modify at least two X-Rays, to establish its location in 3-D space. Indeed, to make it look real, they would need to modify all the X-Rays. This ‘fragment’ should not only appear on some X-Rays but not others. It would need to appear on all of them.


Clearly, at least some of the people running the cover-up recognized very quickly that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was very problematic for the lone-gunman tale. The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report that the wound was “slightly above” and 2.5 cm/1 inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). The EOP is the bump in the middle of the lower part of the back of the head.

Since a bullet fired from the alleged sniper’s window would have struck JFK’s head at a markedly downward angle (at least 15 degrees), JFK would have had to be leaning far forward to enable that bullet to exit at a location that was above the entry point and that was in the right parietal region.

No. You have not read the works of a real ballistic expert, like Larry Sturdivan.

Bullet fragments do not travel in straight lines. They follow curved lines within a head. So, either the EOP or cowlick entry works. You don’t need to fake an entry wound to establish a straight line from the sniper’s nest, through the entry wound, through the exit wound. And if this was done, what good would it do? Because the windshield frame and windshield are well above this line.

Larry Sturdivan felt that the EOP entry location was more probable, partly because that location would not require the fragments path to curve too much, to pass through the entry wound, pass through the exit wound, and hit or pass close to the windshield frame.


Equally important, if not more important, the autopsy doctors said they identified the rear entry wound based on skull fragments that were brought to the autopsy late that night, and that part of the entry wound was contained in one of those fragments. This, of course, meant that some occipital bone had been blasted out of the skull, but the back-of-the-head autopsy photo shows no such damage. Also, an occipital bone fragment with part of any entry wound in it could lead to the logical inference that a bullet struck the occiput and then a second bullet struck the front of the head and blew out part of the occiput.

My understanding is that the rear entry wound was in the back of the skull and not part of any skull fragments. It was the exit wound, on the right side of the head near the front that was found in one of the skull fragments, fragmented by the explosive wound. It was these skull fragments that established the location of the exit wound.


So, for these two reasons—the trajectory issue and the occipital-bone-fragment issue—the autopsy/EOP rear head entry wound had to be ditched and discredited.

No, not with the curved paths of bullet fragments, which are always curved when viewed in ballistic gel.


Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film knows that it does not show Kennedy leaning far enough forward when the head shot strikes to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP and through the right parietal area.

Thus, the rear head entry wound had to be moved, and moved substantially, even if it meant making the autopsy doctors look like bumbling idiots. After all, how could anyone “mistake” a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm/4 inches lower, especially when they had two prominent features to use as reference points (the hairline and the EOP)?

Again, you fail to understand that bullet fragment through head and ballistic gel do not follow straight line paths.


Yet, the autopsy doctors vehemently challenged the FPP on the cowlick location. To a man, each autopsy doctor ardently rejected the higher location and insisted that they had seen and handled the rear entry site and were positive that it was only a fraction of an inch above the EOP. They each indicated that it was insulting and unreasonable to suggest that they had mislocated the wound by 4 inches.

Larry Sturdivan believes the autopsy doctors were correct to challenge the cowlick location. The EOP location is probably correct. It actually requires the fragments to curve a lot less if the EOP location is the true location and not the cowlick location.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 31, 2020, 01:48:48 AM
Again, we don’t know if this was a 6.5 mm object. You cannot accurately estimate the size of an object in an X-Ray.

You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you?  Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.

How does an X-Ray work? On one side of the head, you have an X-Ray source, that emits X-Rays from a point source. On the other side of the head is an X-Ray plate. Objects made of bone, metal and other material will cast a shadow on the X-Ray plate. If the object is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the X-Ray plate, it will cast a bigger shadow. If the same object is closer to the X-Ray place, and further from the X-Ray source, it will cast a smaller shadow.

So, if two pennies are taped to opposite sides of the head and the head is X-Rayed, the pennies will not appear to be the same size. The penny closer to the X-Ray source will appear bigger.

Yes, yes, whatever. You still do not seem to understand optical density measurements and what they can rule out. You really need to break down and read the research of Mantik, Chesser, and Horne on this issue. By the way, Dr. Mantik's section on the 6.5 mm object in Assassination Science was proof-read by Dr. Arthur G. Haus, who was the director of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics.

So, without knowing where in the head the object is, one cannot accurately know its size. One cannot tell if it was near the alleged entry wound or on the opposite side of the head. It would only be possible to say the object was near the alleged entry wound if it appeared in at least two X-Rays, showing the head from different directions. That is the only way it could be accurately placed in 3-D space.

Again, you are casting about blindly and coming up empty because you have not read the relevant research. The 6.5 mm object is a ghosted image--so it has no "location" as such, because it was never on/in the skull, but it has been ghosted over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head. That is why it is only visible on the AP view, and that is one way that we know it is a phantom image. Break down and read the research.

On a separate point, if the conspirators wanted to establish a false entry location, they would need to modify at least two X-Rays, to establish its location in 3-D space. Indeed, to make it look real, they would need to modify all the X-Rays. This ‘fragment’ should not only appear on some X-Rays but not others. It would need to appear on all of them.

You can dream up picture-perfect cover-up scenarios all day, but your speculation does not explain the hard scientific evidence. Duplicating the object on the lateral x-rays would have been difficult and would have taken more time. There were two lateral views, so the forger would have had to duplicate the object exactly on both, and would have had to make sure that it was dimensionally consistent with the object on the AP view if it were ever analyzed for consistency. For these reasons, the forger might have felt it best and wisest to just put the object on the AP x-ray, and the conspirators probably felt confident that no one would examine the x-rays anytime soon would be looking at them with a critical eye.

As Doug Horne notes, the conspirators were rushed and were having to deal with multiple issues quickly and on-the-fly. They only had so much time and only so much control over witting and unwitting ground-level people. They were not expecting the body to even go to Bethesda. They planned on sending the body to Walter Reed, where they had a team waiting to do the "autopsy," but Jackie unexpectedly insisted that the autopsy be done at Bethesda since JFK had served in the Navy. Horne documents this in some detail in Inside the ARRB. Here's a radio interview where Horne discusses this issue based on new evidence from recently discovered Air Force One tapes and other evidence--it is three hours long because so much material has become available on the subject:

[/size]

No. You have not read the works of a real ballistic expert, like Larry Sturdivan.

Oh, I dare say that I've read a whole bunch more books and articles on ballistics than you have.

Bullet fragments do not travel in straight lines.  They follow curved lines within a head.

No, bullet fragments do not always travel in straight lines, but they don't make magical sharp turns either, unless they strike something hard enough to cause a sharp turn.

So, either the EOP or cowlick entry works.

That is nonsense. You go get Z311 and draw a diagram over it that shows a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP wound upward to the right parietal region. Let's see it.

You might also go look at the WC and HSCA diagrams and see the marked difference in how far they have Kennedy leaning forward.


You don’t need to fake an entry wound to establish a straight line from the sniper’s nest, through the entry wound, through the exit wound.

Nonsense. You simply ignored the reasons I gave for the revision of the wound's location. They had to deal with the trajectory issue and with the issue of blasted-out occipital bone.

And if this was done, what good would it do? Because the windshield frame and windshield are well above this line.

You must be kidding. Again, the EOP entry site meant missing occipital bone that was not brought to Bethesda until late in the autopsy, and that fragment only contained part of the entry wound. Missing occipital bone implied a second bullet that blasted out part of the occiput after the first bullet made the entry hole that was contained in the late-arriving occipital fragment. The high fragment trail does not remotely line up with a bullet that entered just above the EOP, but at the fake cowlick site at least gets close to it.

"IF" this was done? "IF"?  You are simply in denial.  The 6.5 mm object was ghosted onto the AP skull x-ray over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head. A pseudo hole was placed on the F3 autopsy photo, and when the HSCA showed it to Finck, he asked how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy and insisted there was no wound in cowlick at the autopsy.


Larry Sturdivan felt that the EOP entry location was more probable, partly because that location would not require the fragments path to curve too much, to pass through the entry wound, pass through the exit wound, and hit or pass close to the windshield frame.

Then Larry could not read an x-ray (actually, to be fair, he apparently only saw the FPP's doctored "enhanced" version of the skull x-rays). The only fragment trail now seen on the x-rays is very high in the skull and is even above the cowlick entry point. A whole bunch of radiologists and other experts, on both sides, have confirmed this.

Sturdivan told the HSCA that if an exploding or frangible bullet had struck the skull, it "definitely" would have left a cloud of metal fragments close to the point of entrance:


Quote
Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?

Mr. STURDIVAN. . . . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. (1 HSCA 401)

Well, apparently Sturdivan was unaware of the fact that on the unenhanced autopsy x-rays, a cloud of fragments is visible in the right frontal region, which would indicate that a frangible bullet struck in that area. Apparently  Sturdivan only examined the enhanced x-rays and not the original x-rays. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz comments on this:

Quote
Sturvidan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. Sturdivan's remarks betrayed both his own ignorance of the medical evidence and the committee's careful manipulation of that evidence. Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.

Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head. One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone." The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound. The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)

My understanding is that the rear entry wound was in the back of the skull and not part of any skull fragments.

Then your understanding is based on incomplete research. Boswell and Finck were especially clear on this point.

It was the exit wound, on the right side of the head near the front that was found in one of the skull fragments, fragmented by the explosive wound. It was these skull fragments that established the location of the exit wound.

There was no exit wound in the right parietal region. Humes created that "wound" before the autopsy began--Tom Robinson, the mortician, watched him do it, and told the ARRB about it. We have all of the Parkland Hospital treatment reports on Kennedy, dated 11/22/63, and none of them mentions any damage to the right parietal area--they all put the large wound in the back of the head, and several mention that cerebellar tissue was extruding and missing. The nurse who washed JFK's body saw no wound in right parietal region--she saw a sizable wound in the back of the skull, the same wound that Clint Hill saw for several minutes close up en route to Parkland, and the same wound that he saw again at the morgue. Perhaps you could explain the impossible white patch on the two lateral skull x-rays that covers the right-rear part of the skull.

By the way, if you actually read the autopsy report, you find that Humes said that the large head wound extended into the occiput:


Quote
There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. (p. 3)

How about you show me on autopsy photo F3 where there is any part of the large wound that even touches the occiput (which is the "occipital region"), much less extends into it. Let's see it. It ain't there.

No, not with the curved paths of bullet fragments, which are always curved when viewed in ballistic gel.

Again, you fail to understand that bullet fragment through head and ballistic gel do not follow straight line paths.

More dressed-up ducking and dodging. No one denies that bullets and fragments usually curve to some extent or another, but they do not make sharp turns after they have begun to travel unless they strike something.

Even the revised, fake higher entry point does not explain the windshield glass and chrome damage--because, as Canning admitted, the trajectory from the exit wound does not line up vertically with that damage. But the conspirators probably were not thinking about having to account for that damage but were focused on the immediate issues of the trajectory and the missing occipital bone. They might not have even been aware of the windshield damage at that point, although they did have the limo cleaned before a proper forensic examination could be done on it, and they did have the windshield destroyed and replaced.


Larry Sturdivan believes the autopsy doctors were correct to challenge the cowlick location. The EOP location is probably correct. It actually requires the fragments to curve a lot less if the EOP location is the true location and not the cowlick location.

What?!  Do you just not understand that the only fragment trail that is now visible on the skull x-rays is the one that is above the proposed cowlick entry point? What have you read about the medical evidence? How can anyone who wants to be taken seriously about the medical evidence not know this?

Really, please, break down and do some homework and read the relevant research on these issues, starting with Dr. Mantik's research on the clear scientific evidence of tampering in the skull x-rays.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 31, 2020, 04:10:54 AM
Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.

The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings. Walk:
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 31, 2020, 06:01:32 AM
Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.

The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings. Walk:

Good advice, Jerry!

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 31, 2020, 12:02:14 PM
Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.

The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings. Walk:

Well, gee, thank you for the input, but if you find my choice of font size intolerable, just don't read my posts. How about that? Font size 12 is a standard font size. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

I can read the default font just fine. I just happen to think that 12 looks better. So, again, if you really have heartburn with it, don't read my posts. If it's any consolation, I rarely read yours.


Good advice, Jerry! JohnM

Now that's rather juvenile. Your "Good advice, Jerry!" is in font size 36, which is hardly a standard font size. 12 is a standard font size.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on July 31, 2020, 01:46:02 PM
Now that's rather juvenile. Your "Good advice, Jerry!" is in font size 36, which is hardly a standard font size. 12 is a standard font size.

Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating.

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 31, 2020, 01:50:26 PM
Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating. JohnM

Well, then, gee, that's all the more reason for you to not read my posts. I don't complain that you frequently load your posts with huge bogus GIFs and diagrams, which require a lot of scrolling. Stop whining.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 31, 2020, 06:55:20 PM

You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you?  Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.[/size]

Let’s just deal with this point here. Let’s forget about the JFK assassination case for the moment, and narrowly focus on you claim that “Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays”.

Now, my understanding of X-Ray machines, is that you have:

1.   An X-Ray source. This is essentially a point source of X-Rays. The X-Rays “beams” are not all parallel but radiate from this one point.
2.   Next, you have an object you wish to X-Ray, like a head.
3.   Finally, you have a X-Ray photographic plate.

The object to be X-Rayed is always in the middle. The X-Ray photographic place is always placed at right angles so it would be totally ‘lite up’ by the X-Ray source, if no object was in the way.

The photographic plate is like a negative. It shows black in the regions that were not blocked and received the X-Rays. And white in regions that were blocked by the object in the middle and received no or few X-Rays.


Now, let’s say we tape a penny to the front of the head and a penny to the back. We place them so they don’t both line-up with the X-Ray source. We place the head facing the X-Ray source.

An X-Ray of the head will produce two images of the pennies. The ‘front’ penny will cast a larger ‘shadow’, because it is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the plate.

Question 1:

Do you agree that the ‘frontal’ penny should produce a larger shadow?


Note: I think it will help if you draw on a piece of paper the diverting rays from the X-Ray source.

So, without knowing that the objects are pennies, without knowing their locations within the head in 3-D space, how can one tell the size of either object? How can one tell that these are objects of the same size at different distances, or two objects of different sizes at the same distance?

According to my calculation, if the X-Ray source was 2 meters from the X-Ray plate, and the center of the head only 20 cm from the place, three 6.5 mm objects, one at the very front of the head, one in the center, and one at the very back, will appear on the plate to be 7.8, 7.2 and 6.8 mm wide. The shadow cast on the image is larger the further it is from the plate. The shadow is always going to be wider than the true size.

How can one tell if any of these 3 images were made from an object that was 6.5 mm across? You can’t estimate this without knowing the location of the object within the head.


This is important point, because if one believes that the object in question precisely 6.5 mm across, then it might seem this is too much of a coincidence. But if one realizes that one cannot accurately estimate it’s size, it might be, 7.0 mm, or 6.5 mm or 6.1 mm across, depending on its location within the head, then this argument dissolves away.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating.

JohnM

Yes. Readabilty is what it's all about. For instance, the Arial font was designed to replace Helvetica on computer displays. Properly designed fonts for both online and paper make the act of reading less tiring; apparently the eyes use up to 25% of our total energy on a given day.

My first impression of the enlarged text was that the poster was 'yelling'. I think Griffith is getting evermore frustrated.

I should mention that the larger text causes too much scrolling on my iPad but is just fine one my iPhone.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 31, 2020, 11:17:22 PM
Let’s just deal with this point here. Let’s forget about the JFK assassination case for the moment, and narrowly focus on you claim that “Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays”.

Now, my understanding of X-Ray machines, is that you have:

1.   An X-Ray source. This is essentially a point source of X-Rays. The X-Rays “beams” are not all parallel but radiate from this one point.
2.   Next, you have an object you wish to X-Ray, like a head.
3.   Finally, you have a X-Ray photographic plate.

The object to be X-Rayed is always in the middle. The X-Ray photographic place is always placed at right angles so it would be totally ‘lite up’ by the X-Ray source, if no object was in the way.

The photographic plate is like a negative. It shows black in the regions that were not blocked and received the X-Rays. And white in regions that were blocked by the object in the middle and received no or few X-Rays.

Now, let’s say we tape a penny to the front of the head and a penny to the back. We place them so they don’t both line-up with the X-Ray source. We place the head facing the X-Ray source.

An X-Ray of the head will produce two images of the pennies. The ‘front’ penny will cast a larger ‘shadow’, because it is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the plate.

Question 1:

Do you agree that the ‘frontal’ penny should produce a larger shadow?


Note: I think it will help if you draw on a piece of paper the diverting rays from the X-Ray source.

So, without knowing that the objects are pennies, without knowing their locations within the head in 3-D space, how can one tell the size of either object? How can one tell that these are objects of the same size at different distances, or two objects of different sizes at the same distance?

According to my calculation, if the X-Ray source was 2 meters from the X-Ray plate, and the center of the head only 20 cm from the place, three 6.5 mm objects, one at the very front of the head, one in the center, and one at the very back, will appear on the plate to be 7.8, 7.2 and 6.8 mm wide. The shadow cast on the image is larger the further it is from the plate. The shadow is always going to be wider than the true size.

How can one tell if any of these 3 images were made from an object that was 6.5 mm across? You can’t estimate this without knowing the location of the object within the head.

This is important point, because if one believes that the object in question precisely 6.5 mm across, then it might seem this is too much of a coincidence. But if one realizes that one cannot accurately estimate it’s size, it might be, 7.0 mm, or 6.5 mm or 6.1 mm across, depending on its location within the head, then this argument dissolves away.

This reminds me of when you kept asking me why I had not mentioned the irrelevant goat film to Dr. Zacharko while you kept refusing to deal with the obvious differences between the goat's reaction and JFK's reaction and the differences between goat anatomy and human anatomy.

Look, nobody but nobody says there is any doubt about the size of the 6.5 mm object. You are just making up an issue out of thin air. Let's put it this way: The Clark Panel had no problem determining the object's width. Nor did the HSCA. Nor did Dr. Mantik. Nor did Dr. Chesser. Nor did Dr. Fitzpatrick. Nor did Dr. Robertson. Nor did Dr. Riley. Nor did Larry Sturdivan. No expert on either side has expressed any doubt about the width of the object. 

Regarding the fact that part of the EOP rear head entry wound was contained in a fragment of occipital bone, here is some documentation of this fact:

Dr. Finck told General Blumberg that the skull contained only a portion of the crater of the rear head entry wound, which of course means that missing occipital bone contained the other part of the crater:


Quote
I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance. (“Personal Notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy,” Finck’s report to General J.M. Blumberg, February 1, 1965, p. 2)

Dr. Gary Aguilar:

Quote
During his HSCA appearance, Boswell described it this way: They had to dissect JFK’s scalp to see the entrance wound in JFK’s skull bone, “But not too much,” Boswell explained, “because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here – there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.”

A few minutes later, Boswell elaborated: “There was a shelf and then a little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.” During a recorded call in 1994 (a copy of which is available at the National Archives), Boswell told one of the authors (Aguilar) the same thing: “The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”

Thus, detecting the point the fatal bullet struck the head required some reconstruction of JFK’s skull, and perhaps a little imagination, too. Because the presence of a bullet hole was evidently only detected after two pieces of JFK’s shattered occipital bone were pieced together and a gap, showing internal beveling, could be made out between them. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm. This article includes hyperlinks to sources for the quotes and statements)

Dr. Mantik:

Quote
The proposed entry site on the posterior skull presented yet another set of difficulties. According to testimony twice repeated by the second pathologist, J. Thornton Boswell, with Humes at his side, the right posterior entry wound of the skull was also reconstructed late that night. . . . The three bone fragments most likely arrived after this time [after Sibert and O’Neill left the autopsy]. At this early morning hour, then, based primarily on these bone fragments, the pathologists placed the entry site at 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP) and slightly above it. The smallest of the three late arriving bone fragments fit right into this site according to Boswell. (Assassination Science, p. 96, available at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf. For ease of reading, I have removed the footnotes, but you can check them in the book, which can be downloaded for free from the aforementioned URL)

So only part of the entry wound in the EOP was present in the skull because the other part of it, the other half of the circle of the hole, was in a piece of occipital bone, and at some point that occipital fragment arrived at Bethesda and it contained the other half of the circumference of the entry hole.

In connection with this, we should remember that Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA that he x-rayed the occipital bone fragment that arrived at Bethesda late that night:


Quote
The only function that I had was later in the evening, early in the morning--perhaps about twelve thirty a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I x-rayed these [the bone fragment and the neck wound]. These were the last X rays I took. (HSCA deposition, March 11, 1978, pp. 4-5)

Now, obviously, missing occipital bone discredits autopsy photos F3 and F5. There is no trace of any missing occipital bone in those photos. Another problem with those photos is that they do not even show the large head wound described in the autopsy report. The autopsy report says the large defect extended "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" (p. 3). But in the autopsy photos the large defect does not even come close to the occiput.









Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 01, 2020, 12:00:58 AM

This reminds me of when you kept asking me why I had not mentioned the irrelevant goat film to Dr. Zacharko while you kept refusing to deal with the obvious differences between the goat's reaction and JFK's reaction and the differences between goat anatomy and human anatomy.

Look, nobody but nobody says there is any doubt about the size of the 6.5 mm object. You are just making up an issue out of thin air. Let's put it this way: The Clark Panel had no problem determining the object's width. Nor did the HSCA. Nor did Dr. Mantik. Nor did Dr. Chesser. Nor did Dr. Fitzpatrick. Nor did Dr. Robertson. Nor did Dr. Riley. Nor did Larry Sturdivan. This is a non-issue. 

No one ever claimed the ‘object’ was 6.5 mm across?

You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you?  Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.[/size]

The truth is, the size is probably between 6.0 mm and 7.0 mm. And possibly a bit smaller than 6.0 mm. Or a bit larger than 7.0 mm. It should be called a 6 to 7 mm object, not a 6.5 mm fragment. To say it is a 6.5 mm fragment, or a 6.500 fragment, implies its size is known to great precision, and it would be a massive coincidence, that it should match the diameter of a WCC/MC with such precision, by sheer chance. But I suppose CTers will continue to call it a 6.5 mm fragment just like they call the Single Bullet Theory the Magic Bullet Theory. Because the label they put on things is very important to propaganda.

Lots of people, both LNers and CTers have called it a 6.5 mm fragment, but only because early CTers were successful in getting this label established early on. But I will not call it such in the future. Not until it is proven to be somewhere between 6.45 and 6.55 mm in size. Which will never happen. To me it is a 6 to 7 mm object (no, not even a 6 to 7 mm fragment).


P.S. Larry Sturdivan argued that this was an object that was accidentally placed in or on the head. But most LNers say it is a defect in the X-Ray, which I understand does happen. That is one reason multiple X-Rays are taken. So, such defects can be more easily identified when they appear in only one X-Ray but not the others. I don’t take a strong stand on either theory, except to note that an accidental object is possible, when the “object” in question does not look like any kind of fragment but like something that is commonly carried in a pocket.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 01, 2020, 02:39:20 AM
He was instructed to put fragments of a 6.5 mm jacketed bullet to make it look like the head shot was from the same rifle as the other shots. Because it was not, it was from 5.56 mm frangible round.
I thought I would stir up the pot a little bit.......
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 02, 2020, 04:56:17 PM
Another key reason that the rear head entry wound was moved and that the 6.5 mm object was planted was the fragment trail in the autopsy skull x-rays. The fragment trail is high in the head, over 4 inches above the EOP entry site. Its ends are nowhere near the EOP entry site. Dr. Michael Chesser:

Quote
I think that one of the reasons that they moved the entry wound up was due to the fragment particle trail shown in the right lateral skull x-ray. If a line is drawn from the Warren Commission entry site and the proposed exit site, you’ll notice that the particle trail doesn’t correspond with these sites. The prominent particle trail is located in the upper portion of the skull.

Now if you do the same for the HSCA entry and exit sites, you’ll notice that the line is closer to the particle trail, but it still doesn’t seem to correspond.

On the frontal view, the AP x-ray, the particle trail is located high in this image, which is probably in the scalp and meninges. There is a lot going on in this image, with multiple skull fractures, and much of the skull missing over the right frontal, parietal, occipital regions. The orbital rim is fractured on both sides. The vomer bone (nasal) is fractured. You can see that there is brain shadow on the left side, but you really can’t see any on the right side. The burn marks are located on the right side, lateral to the orbital wall. There is low density, or missing bone behind the nasal bones and at the lower edge of the left orbit – and I agree with Dr. Mantik that this suggests missing occipital bone, extending over to the left side. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)

Humes said the fragment trail ran from the EOP wound to a point just above the supraorbital ridge, i.e., just above the right eye! In the autopsy report, he wrote that the x-rays showed “multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge” (p. 4).

Now, of course, either Humes told a bald-faced lie or a forger removed the fragment trail or moved the fragment trail to the top of the head to discredit the EOP entry site. Humes could not have misread the x-rays so horrendously. Nor could Finck and Boswell. Nor could the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole. Additionally, the autopsy doctors said nothing in the autopsy report or in their testimony about seeing a trail of fragments at the top of the head.

Assuming the fragment trail that we now see on the skull x-rays is the only trail that was on the x-rays at the autopsy, the conspirators realized that Humes’s claim about the fragment trail would be recognized as erroneous, to say the least. Or, if there was a low fragment trail in addition to the trail at the top of the head, the conspirators realized that the low trail had to disappear, because two fragment trails separated by several inches would be clear proof that two bullets had hit the skull.

Did all the autopsy doctors simply tell a whopping lie about the fragment trail, or were the x-rays altered to make the trail they saw disappear? Finck swore up and down in later testimony that he saw a fragment trail that started at the EOP entry site and went upward to a point just above the right eye. Given all the other lies that the autopsy doctors told, I would not be surprised to learn they lied about the fragment trail, but I have a slight nagging suspicion that they might have been telling the truth in this instance.

The forger could have made the low fragment trail disappear, but this would not have been an easy task, and moving the trail by over 4 inches would have been even harder. If there was a low fragment trail, the forger realized that he could not deal with it the same way he dealt with the right-rear defect. He put a large white/impossibly dense patch over the right-rear skull defect. He had no idea that decades later modern technology would enable experts to easily expose the patch as fake via optical density measurements. But he could not just place a patch over a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right eye. Making that trail disappear would have been a more difficult task than concealing the right-rear head wound.

By ghosting the image of the 6.5 mm object over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head, the forger put a large “fragment” on the outer table of the skull in the back of the head and just below the fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays, laying the foundation for obliging experts to move the rear head entry wound. And, obligingly enough, the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP both cited the 6.5 mm object as evidence of their phony cowlick entry wound and claimed that the fragment trail was created by the bullet from which the 6.5 mm object supposedly “sheared off” as it struck the cowlick.

If nothing else, WC apologists, since they claim the autopsy x-rays are authentic and pristine, must explain how the three autopsy doctors and the radiologist could have so blunderingly misread the skull x-rays as to mistake a fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail over 4 inches lower. Keep in mind that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail at the top of the head. Moreover, the extant fragment trail runs nearly horizontally, but the autopsy doctors said the fragment trail followed a markedly upward trajectory—from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. How in the world could anyone, even a first-year resident, make such an egregious error?

Simply put, the fragment trail described by the autopsy doctors is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy x-rays, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about a fragment trail at the top of the skull. So either the autopsy doctors committed one of the most egregious, incomprehensible blunders in forensic history, or they brazenly lied, or the x-rays have been altered.


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 03, 2020, 09:00:45 PM
Jerrol Custer, x-ray technician, had been instructed by Dr Ebersol (sp) to tape metal fragments to the skull bone of JFK. What the skull had originally was very small fragments, nothing like those that would have come from a metal jacked bullet, if you would have gotten any frags at all from a jacketed bullet.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 03, 2020, 10:19:35 PM
No one ever claimed the ‘object’ was 6.5 mm across?

The truth is, the size is probably between 6.0 mm and 7.0 mm. And possibly a bit smaller than 6.0 mm. Or a bit larger than 7.0 mm. It should be called a 6 to 7 mm object, not a 6.5 mm fragment. To say it is a 6.5 mm fragment, or a 6.500 fragment, implies its size is known to great precision, and it would be a massive coincidence, that it should match the diameter of a WCC/MC with such precision, by sheer chance. But I suppose CTers will continue to call it a 6.5 mm fragment just like they call the Single Bullet Theory the Magic Bullet Theory. Because the label they put on things is very important to propaganda.

Lots of people, both LNers and CTers have called it a 6.5 mm fragment, but only because early CTers were successful in getting this label established early on. But I will not call it such in the future. Not until it is proven to be somewhere between 6.45 and 6.55 mm in size. Which will never happen. To me it is a 6 to 7 mm object (no, not even a 6 to 7 mm fragment).

Look, if you just cannot bring yourself to read the research, there's no point in discussing this issue further with you.

Now, CTers were not the ones who first described the object as being 6.5 mm in diameter. The Clark Panel were the ones who measured the "fragment" to be 6.5 mm in diameter, as they stated in their 1968 report:


Quote
This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter. . . . (p. 11)

No conspiracy theorist knew anything about this fragment until the Clark Panel's report became available.

P.S. Larry Sturdivan argued that this was an object that was accidentally placed in or on the head. But most LNers say it is a defect in the X-Ray, which I understand does happen. That is one reason multiple X-Rays are taken. So, such defects can be more easily identified when they appear in only one X-Ray but not the others. I don’t take a strong stand on either theory, except to note that an accidental object is possible, when the “object” in question does not look like any kind of fragment but like something that is commonly carried in a pocket.

And I have already explained why the accidental-object theory is ridiculous. The object is spatially consistent with the small genuine fragment in the back of the head, so the odds that it is some kind of pill that was dropped on the table and x-rayed with JFK's head over it are astronomically remote. This is not to mention the implausibility that no one would have noticed a pill that size lying on the table.

Furthermore, if the object were a pill, this would mean that it was present on the AP x-ray at the autopsy, which in turn would mean that nobody noticed it, even though it would have been the most obvious "fragment" on the x-rays, far more obvious than the two smaller fragments that the autopsy doctors discerned on the x-rays and removed from the skull.

Most important, and most telling, is that the "pill," to be that bright on the x-ray, would have had to contain more metal than any of JFK's fillings.

The theory that the object is a defect in the x-ray is a howler. For one thing, I would like to see a single solitary example of an x-ray defect being nearly perfectly circular except for the bottom-right portion of the object. Moreover, if the object were an x-ray defect, this would mean it was present on the AP x-ray at the autopsy, which in turn would mean that nobody at the autopsy noticed it. Even more unbelievably, this would also mean that by sheer, cosmic coincidence, the defect occurred in just the exact right place to be spatially consistent with its partner image on the lateral x-rays.

Your labored efforts to avoid the obvious, logical, and scientific conclusion that the 6.5 mm object was planted on the AP x-ray are as sad and silly as if a construction worker who was alone on a tall scaffold threw a small screw at a coworker on the ground and hit his helmet with it, and if the guilty worker then denied throwing the screw and claimed that a piece of space debris had hit his coworker's helmet. Yes, technically speaking, this explanation would not be categorically impossible, since each year some space debris does fall to Earth, but sensible people would dismiss the explanation as ridiculous and too far fetched to warrant a moment's consideration.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 03, 2020, 11:59:46 PM
I invite everyone to watch the documentary "JFK - The Smoking Gun" by Colin McLaren. The video can be found on line and it is an hour and a half long. It explains the fragments, JFK's head movement, the cover-up and more. People spend hours writing on this site, you all can certainly spend 90 min to watch the documentary and learn something very interesting.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on August 04, 2020, 01:45:50 AM
I invite everyone to watch the documentary "JFK - The Smoking Gun" by Colin McLaren. The video can be found on line and it is an hour and a half long. It explains the fragments, JFK's head movement, the cover-up and more. People spend hours writing on this site, you all can certainly spend 90 min to watch the documentary and learn something very interesting.

It does not explain the two large bullet fragments found in the limo. It also doesn't explain how Hickey could have fired the fatal shot when he was still seated at the time.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 04, 2020, 02:32:55 AM
I'm sorry, I misunderstood which frags you were talking about. I was thinking the frags in the skull x-ray.
Hickey was seated on the back of the backseat with the AR 15, then he stood on the back seat. Two secret service agents saw Hickey with the gun and one the thought he had fired it. Over ten people in the motorcade smelled gunsmoke. It explains the jerking backward of JFK's head also.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 04, 2020, 02:33:31 AM
I invite everyone to watch the documentary "JFK - The Smoking Gun" by Colin McLaren. The video can be found on line and it is an hour and a half long. It explains the fragments, JFK's head movement, the cover-up and more. People spend hours writing on this site, you all can certainly spend 90 min to watch the documentary and learn something very interesting.

The video does explain a few things, and it does a decent job of exposing part of the cover-up, but it gets many things very wrong. McLaren bases his case almost entirely on Howard Donahue's research. But Donahue, although he made some important discoveries, was very poorly read on the medical evidence and failed to consider all the disclosures that came from the ARRB releases and the research developments that occurred in the mid- and late 1990s.

When I corresponded with Donahue several years after his book came out, he was very good on the dented shell and on the impossibility of any sizable fragment shearing off an FMJ bullet and ending up below the shearing point after striking it at a downward angle, but he appeared to be unaware of the ARRB releases and the new research developments.

For example, Donahue assumed the 6.5 mm object was a genuine fragment that came from the bullet that struck the curb early in the shooting, but we now know that the object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment in the back of the skull.

Donahue uncritically accepted the Clark Panel and the HSCA's relocation of the rear head entry wound by a whopping 4 inches, but we now know that the skull x-rays show no entry wound at the proposed higher location, and that when the HSCA showed the back-of-the-head photo to Finck, he went so far as to question how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken during the autopsy.

Donahue was aware of some of the problems with the relocation of the rear head entry wound, but he preferred the higher location because it fit with his theory that Hickey fired the officially acknowledged fatal head shot. He acknowledged in his book that the EOP entry wound could not have come from the sixth-floor window and could not have come from Hickey. When the Clark Panel, and then the HSCA, said the entry wound was 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors adamantly said it was, he was willing to take their word because he thought it provided a plausible trajectory from the entry point back to Hickey's rifle.










Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 04, 2020, 04:42:55 AM
For example, Donahue assumed the 6.5 mm object was a genuine fragment that came from the bullet that struck the curb early in the shooting, but we now know that the object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment in the back of the skull.

Please excuse my ignorance but please explain what you mean by “ghosted image” in this situation. One thing I would like to mention is that JFK said “I’ve been hit”, this was before the magic bullet so I assumed that he was hit with a frag from the bullet that hit the pavement. He would not have been able to say anything after being hit with the magic bullet.

Donahue uncritically accepted the Clark Panel and the HSCA's relocation of the rear head entry wound by a whopping 4 inches, but we now know that the skull x-rays show no entry wound at the proposed higher location, and that when the HSCA showed the back-of-the-head photo to Finck, he went so far as to question how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken during the autopsy.

I don’t know that it matters if the bullet hit JFK high in the back of the head or 4 inches lower. He was leaning forward and downward. A bullet coming almost perfectly horizontal would do what it did to JFK. A frangible round of course, not a fmj bullet. The fact that the entry wound measurement was noted in the autopsy as 6 mm tells me it couldn’t have been a 6.5 mm round but a 5.65 diameter would explain an AR 15 round.

Lets sum it up: with the diameter of the hole in the back of JFK’s head, the explosive destruction of JFK’s head and direction (the physics of it, an explosion in his head), Hickey’s behavior after, the cover up by the SS, the smoke smelled in the motorcade, the witness’s that saw Hickey with the gun, the one SS Agent that thought Hickey fired off a round, what was going on in the autopsy room with Dr Ebersol and Jerrome tells you a cover up was in progress. And who is pushing the cover up and getting the body out of Dallas, the Secret Service, why?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on August 04, 2020, 05:35:51 AM
I'm sorry, I misunderstood which frags you were talking about. I was thinking the frags in the skull x-ray.
Hickey was seated on the back of the backseat with the AR 15, then he stood on the back seat. Two secret service agents saw Hickey with the gun and one the thought he had fired it. Over ten people in the motorcade smelled gunsmoke. It explains the jerking backward of JFK's head also.

I'm talking about CE 567 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150) and  CE 569 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151), which were matched to Oswald's Carcano.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on August 04, 2020, 05:44:31 AM
The fact that the entry wound measurement was noted in the autopsy as 6 mm tells me it couldn’t have been a 6.5 mm round but a 5.65 diameter would explain an AR 15 round.

The entry wound measurement of 6 mm was actually 15 mm X 6 mm. It was of the laceration in the scalp, not the hole in the skull. The dimensions of the hole in the skull were never given. All that they said was that there was a corresponding wound in the skull. Which was just them giving the location of the wound in the skull, not the dimensions of it.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 04, 2020, 02:46:25 PM
"The entry wound measurement of 6 mm was actually 15 mm X 6 mm. It was of the laceration in the scalp, not the hole in the skull. The dimensions of the hole in the skull were never given. All that they said was that there was a corresponding wound in the skull. Which was just them giving the location of the wound in the skull, not the dimensions of it."

Tim could you please direct me to where I can read more about this?

Seems odd that Howard Donahue would dedicate so much time and energy based on faulty information but maybe all the information wasn't available to him at the time.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 04, 2020, 06:02:36 PM
For example, Donahue assumed the 6.5 mm object was a genuine fragment that came from the bullet that struck the curb early in the shooting, but we now know that the object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment in the back of the skull.

Please excuse my ignorance but please explain what you mean by “ghosted image” in this situation.

A forger used a darkroom technique to place the image of the 6.5 mm object over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head--after the autopsy. Dr. David Mantik has been able to duplicate how it was done.

Until three medical doctors with expertise in radiology (one of them was Mantik) did optical density (OD) measurements on the 6.5 mm object, nearly all researchers assumed the object was a fragment, and the debate was over whether it came from FMJ ammo or from other ammo and whether or not it was a ricochet fragment.

When the OD measurements were done, we learned that the 6.5 mm object is a ghosted image--it is an image that was placed on the AP x-ray. The object's OD measurements are nothing like what they would be if the object were metallic, even though the object is brighter than any of JFK's dental fillings. On a normal x-ray, the brighter an object is, the thicker it is. If the 6.5 mm object were a fragment, its OD measurements would be consistent with those of other metal objects on the x-rays, but they are not.

On a related note, the noticeable white patch in the right-rear part of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays gives OD measurements that are wildly impossible, proving that the patch is not bone but is manmade. The patch was placed there to conceal the right-rear exit wound that dozens of witnesses in three different locations saw on JFK's head.

Here are some articles on the 6.5 mm object and the right-rear white patch:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf

https://themantikview.com/pdf/JFK_Autopsy_materials_summary.pdf

http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/


One thing I would like to mention is that JFK said “I’ve been hit”, this was before the magic bullet so I assumed that he was hit with a frag from the bullet that hit the pavement. He would not have been able to say anything after being hit with the magic bullet.

Yes, I agree with McLaren and Donahue on this point. The only possible explanation for the two small fragments on the back of the head in the skull x-rays is that they are ricochet fragments. There is just no other plausible scientific explanation.

The two small fragments are the small fragment that is inside the 6.5 mm object and the slightly smaller fragment that Dr. McDonnel identified on the skull x-rays for the HSCA. The smaller fragment is slightly to the left of the fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. Both are embedded in the outer table of the skull, so there is no way on this planet that they came from an FMJ missile that hit the head.

Sturdivan did not know there was a small genuine fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. His radiology skills were limited because he was a ballistics expert. But, he noted that the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ missile, which is why he said it was an "artifact." I find it odd that he did not address Dr. McDonnel's report on the second fragment on the back of the head on the outer table of the skull. I find it hard to believe that he was not aware of it.


Donahue uncritically accepted the Clark Panel and the HSCA's relocation of the rear head entry wound by a whopping 4 inches, but we now know that the skull x-rays show no entry wound at the proposed higher location, and that when the HSCA showed the back-of-the-head photo to Finck, he went so far as to question how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken during the autopsy.

I don’t know that it matters if the bullet hit JFK high in the back of the head or 4 inches lower. He was leaning forward and downward. A bullet coming almost perfectly horizontal would do what it did to JFK. A frangible round of course, not a fmj bullet.

I agree it was a frangible bullet, not an FMJ one, but even Donahue admitted that the EOP entry site, i.e., the low entry site, was very problematic for the lone-gunman scenario. Moving a wound by 4 inches on the back of a skull makes a huge difference in trajectory. JFK was leaning forward, but not nearly far enough forward to make the EOP entry site line up with the sixth-floor window, as Donahue correctly noted.

Another key issue here is the fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays. The autopsy doctors said the trail began at the EOP site and went upward to a point just above the right eye. But no such trail is now visible on the x-rays, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about a trail 4 inches higher at the top of the skull. So either they were staggeringly incompetent and mistook the high fragment trail as being 4 inches lower and starting at the EOP site, or they just brazenly lied about the trail's location, or the lower trail was removed from the x-rays.

Plus, the revised rear entry point has been discredited. We now know that even some of the HSCA's radiologic consultants doubted the higher entry point. Moreover, the ARRB experts refuted it, as have many private medical doctors who have examined the x-rays at the National Archives.


The fact that the entry wound measurement was noted in the autopsy as 6 mm tells me it couldn’t have been a 6.5 mm round but a 5.65 diameter would explain an AR 15 round.

I totally agree. Bullets always make entry holes in bone that are slightly larger than their diameter. Donahue, being a ballistics expert, knew this and spotted this issue when he read the autopsy report. The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk.

Lets sum it up: with the diameter of the hole in the back of JFK’s head, the explosive destruction of JFK’s head and direction (the physics of it, an explosion in his head), Hickey’s behavior after, the cover up by the SS, the smoke smelled in the motorcade, the witness’s that saw Hickey with the gun, the one SS Agent that thought Hickey fired off a round, what was going on in the autopsy room with Dr Ebersol and Jerrome tells you a cover up was in progress. And who is pushing the cover up and getting the body out of Dallas, the Secret Service, why?

This is where we disagree. All but one of these items of evidence fits very well with a frontal-gunman scenario. I agree that the SS was deeply involved in cover-up activity, but I don't think it had anything to do with Hickey.

I see no credible evidence that Hickey fired his gun. Kennedy loyalist Dave Powers was in Hickey's car, and Powers said there was no way he could not have heard Hickey's rifle fire. In fact, none of the occupants in Hickey's car showed any reaction that would be consistent with having just heard an AR-15 fire from their car. I have fired several AR-15s--they are very loud.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 04, 2020, 08:03:55 PM
I agree it was a frangible bullet, not an FMJ one, but even Donahue admitted that the EOP entry site, i.e., the low entry site, was very problematic for the lone-gunman scenario. Moving a wound by 4 inches on the back of a skull makes a huge difference in trajectory. JFK was leaning forward, but not nearly far enough forward to make the EOP entry site line up with the sixth-floor window, as Donahue correctly noted.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/head-wounds-lateral-view-JFK-F-137.jpg)  (https://jfk-donahue.weebly.com/uploads/8/2/8/1/8281037/_2776069_orig.jpg)

Donahue had his own ideas about where the inshoot and Committee's outshoot were, and the tilt of the skull. Donahue also had a 10° difference in right-to-left head rotation compared to that of the HSCA.

Quote
Another key issue here is the fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays. The autopsy doctors said the trail began at the EOP site and went upward to a point just above the right eye. But no such trail is now visible on the x-rays, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about a trail 4 inches higher at the top of the skull. So either they were staggeringly incompetent and mistook the high fragment trail as being 4 inches lower and starting at the EOP site, or they just brazenly lied about the trail's location, or the lower trail was removed from the x-rays.

My belief is that Humes mistook through palpitation some bump under the scalp that was just below the "cowlick" entry hole. There were fracture lines projecting below the "cowlick" entry hole and there have been blood clots, and so forth. Humes' simple mistake doesn't make the whole team "staggeringly incompetent". You're such an exaggerator.

Quote
Plus, the revised rear entry point has been discredited. We now know that even some of the HSCA's radiologic consultants doubted the higher entry point. Moreover, the ARRB experts refuted it, as have many private medical doctors who have examined the x-rays at the National Archives.

I totally agree. Bullets always make entry holes in bone that are slightly larger than their diameter. Donahue, being a ballistics expert, knew this and spotted this issue when he read the autopsy report. The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk.

(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Fatteh2x.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Example of skin elasticity: The entrance wound caused by
the 0.32 caliber bullet is much smaller than the bullet itself.

They didn't say the "bone shrunk", Ole Misrepresentator. They said the 6 millimeters "was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull". That passage cited Dr. Humes' testimony.

    "The size of the defect in the scalp, caused by a projectile could vary from
     missile to missile because of elastic recoil and so forth of the tissues.
     However, the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this case,
     the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm., so I would feel
     that that would be the absolute upper limit of the size of this missile, sir."

    "This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic
     recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
     this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than the caliber of the
     missile that traversed it."

See how Humes said elastic recoil applied to the scalp, not the skull. Bugliosi termed the reference to "skull" in the Report to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."

Since there was no measurement made on bared bone, Humes' 6x15 measurement would seem to be proof that Humes only measured the skull entry wound with the scalp in place and that he never measured with the EOP bared. It would also stand to reason that he located the "EOP" bump (mistakenly) through touch of the scalp.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 05, 2020, 03:33:44 AM
I had not seen or heard of the “spray” of the tiny fragments before and the direction. Then if that is true then James Files did it after all. I have not seen what a mercury tipped bullet would do to someone’s head but I would like to sew this part of it up.

I think in the case of Hickey and the secret service, I think they though they did it. Hickeys gun went off at the same time of the head shot, thus the cover up. I don’t know when the particle paths were discovered but I think Hickey might have gone to his grave thinking he killed JFK, poor bastard.


As far as you not seeing any credible evidence that Hickey fired the gun: 1. the gun smoke in the motorcade, could not have come from the grassy knoll, wind direction was wrong. 2. Several witnesses saw him with the gun and one thought he fired it. It makes sense he stood up on the back seat, the car accelerated or decelerated and he lost his balance and grabbing for something to hold onto, he squeezed off a round, where it went, who knows.

This scenario works with everything I said happened with a shot from Hickey. Only part of my previous scenario is Hickeys shot did not hit JFK but it explains everything else; smelling gun smoke in the motorcade, seeing Hickey with the gun, etc. 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 05, 2020, 07:38:41 PM
They didn't say the "bone shrunk", Ole Misrepresentator. They said the 6 millimeters "was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull".

This is silly word parsing. So the skull "recoiled" from 6.5 mm or larger "back" ("REcoiled") to 6.0 mm. What is the difference between saying it "recoiled" to 6.0 mm and saying that it shrunk to 6.0 mm?  But, I'll be happy to stipulate that the WC claimed the skull bone "recoiled" from 6.5 mm or larger to 6.0 mm. Bullet holes made in bone do not "recoil." They are always slightly larger than the diameter of the bullet.

That passage cited Dr. Humes' testimony.

    "The size of the defect in the scalp, caused by a projectile could vary from
     missile to missile because of elastic recoil and so forth of the tissues.
     However, the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this case,
     the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm., so I would feel
     that that would be the absolute upper limit of the size of this missile, sir."

    "This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic
     recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
     this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than the caliber of the
     missile that traversed it."

See how Humes said elastic recoil applied to the scalp, not the skull. Bugliosi termed the reference to "skull" in the Report to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."

Since there was no measurement made on bared bone, Humes' 6x15 measurement would seem to be proof that Humes only measured the skull entry wound with the scalp in place and that he never measured with the EOP bared. It would also stand to reason that he located the "EOP" bump (mistakenly) through touch of the scalp.

Here is another prime example of your showing yourself to be poorly read on the case and of your habit of repeating debunked claims.

Bugliosi should have read the autopsy report, because he would learned that Humes said that the hole in the bone was 6.0 mm, not just the hole in the scalp. Let us read it--again. I have already pointed this out in this very thread, but I guess you missed it, or forgot, or your brain just would not process it, so let us read it again. Let us read where Humes stated in the autopsy report that the wound in the skull corresponded to the wound in the scalp, that the wound in the bone was a "corresponding wound" to the wound in the scalp:


Quote
Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull. (p. 4)

Humes repeated this point in his WC testimony, noting that they determined that the entry wound in the skull corresponded to the wound in the scalp by reflecting the scalp:

Quote
So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area. (2 H 352)

If the hole in the skull had been larger or smaller than the hole in the scalp, Humes would not have called it a "corresponding wound." Why? Because if it were a different size, it would not correspond to the wound in the scalp and thus could not be called a "corresponding wound." If Wound A is 8 mm x 4 mm and Wound B is 8 mm x 3 mm, they could not be called "corresponding wounds"--because, well, they do not correspond, because they are different sizes.

I mean, good grief, even the WC understood plain English here and understood that they had to explain how the hole in the skull could be smaller than the diameter of the alleged 6.5 mm bullet:


Quote
The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it. (WCR, p. 86)

The WC, ignoring Humes's observation that there was a "corresponding wound through both tables of the skull," even proceeded to cite Dr. Finck as their authority for claiming that "when a bullet enters the skull (cranial vault) at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side" (WCR, p. 86) Which, of course, did not really directly address the issue but left the reader to infer that it was not strange that the skull hole was smaller than the bullet that allegedly made it.

Australian detective Colin McLaren addresses this drivel, pointing out that bullet holes in bone are always larger than the diameter of the bullet:

Quote
Dr. Fisher made another fascinating discovery, to do with the width of a Carcano full metal jacket round and that of a .223 round that suits an AR-15 rifle. The Carcano round is 6.5mm wide, hence it is referred to as a 6.5 calibre round. When shot, it will leave an entry hole larger than 6.5mm wide in the wound. Due to the natural elasticity of skin and (in the case of JFK’s rear head wound) skull bone, the entry wound would be around 7mm wide. Whereas the .223 round is a 5.56mm wide projectile. Such a bullet would leave an entry wound 6mm wide.

The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width. A stunning fact! (JFK: The Smoking Gun, 2013, pp. 69-70)

The rear head entry wound was made by a bullet that was smaller than 6.5 mm in diameter. If Oswald's alleged ammo had caused the wound, it would have been 6.75 mm to 7.5 mm in diameter. Good heavens, just get over this fact and move on.




















Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 05, 2020, 09:09:05 PM
So we have a hole in the back of JFK’s head likely from a 5.65 diameter round and evidence of a frontal shot also.  If so then Hinkley and Files both hit him at the same time.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 05, 2020, 09:36:28 PM
This is silly word parsing. So the skull "recoiled" from 6.5 mm or larger "back" ("REcoiled") to 6.0 mm. What is the difference between saying it "recoiled" to 6.0 mm and saying that it shrunk to 6.0 mm?

If the Commission had used the word "shrunk", you might have a point. But as usual you don't.

Quote
But, I'll be happy to stipulate that the WC claimed the skull bone "recoiled" from 6.5 mm or larger to 6.0 mm. Bullet holes made in bone do not "recoil." They are always slightly larger than the diameter of the bullet.

They not only used the word "recoil" but also a citation to Humes' testimony. That's where we find out that Humes is actually taking about the skin having elastic recoil, not the bone of the skull. And that's why Bugliosi said it appeared to him to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."

Quote
Here is another prime example of your showing yourself to be poorly read on the case and of your habit of repeating debunked claims.

Bugliosi should have read the autopsy report, because he would learned that Humes said that the hole in the bone was 6.0 mm, not just the hole in the scalp. Let us read it--again. I have already pointed this out in this very thread, but I guess you missed it, or forgot, or your brain just would not process it, so let us read it again. Let us read where Humes stated in the autopsy report that the wound in the skull corresponded to the wound in the scalp, that the wound in the bone was a "corresponding wound" to the wound in the scalp:

Now show us where Humes measured the entry wound on the skull itself.

Quote
Humes repeated this point in his WC testimony, noting that they determined that the entry wound in the skull corresponded to the wound in the scalp by reflecting the scalp:

That's nice. But Humes didn't measure the skull wound. He saw it briefly after reflection and from underneath; no rulers involved. If Humes had measured the entry wound on bare bone, why did he guess at the size of it based on the size of the scalp wound:

    "the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this
     case, the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm"

Quote
If the hole in the skull had been larger or smaller than the hole in the scalp, Humes would not have called it a "corresponding wound." Why? Because if it were a different size, it would not correspond to the wound in the scalp and thus could not be called a "corresponding wound." If Wound A is 8 mm x 4 mm and Wound B is 8 mm x 3 mm, they could not be called "corresponding wounds"--because, well, they do not correspond, because they are different sizes.

Near as I can tell, the two holes "corresponded" in their placement through a brief visual observation. Only the scalp wound was measured. You really think they should have checked the dimensions of a skull entry hole that was directly beneath a scalp entry hole?

Quote
I mean, good grief, even the WC understood plain English here and understood that they had to explain how the hole in the skull could be smaller than the diameter of the alleged 6.5 mm bullet:

Just substitute the word "skull" with "scalp" and it'll then relate to the passage's own Humes citation, his only measurement of the entry wound, skin elasticity, and why Bugliosi thought it was a typo or loose wording.

Quote
The WC, ignoring Humes's observation that there was a "corresponding wound through both tables of the skull," even proceeded to cite Dr. Finck as their authority for claiming that "when a bullet enters the skull (cranial vault) at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side" (WCR, p. 86) Which, of course, did not really directly address the issue but left the reader to infer that it was not strange that the skull hole was smaller than the bullet that allegedly made it.

I don't see any inference. The paragraph is talking about beveling.

Quote
Australian detective Colin McLaren addresses this drivel, pointing out that bullet holes in bone are always larger than the diameter of the bullet:

He's full of crap. It can hardly be "natural elasticity of skin" if a 6.5mm bullet is--in Mclaren's world--supposed to make a scalp wound 7mm wide. Furthermore, elasticity means a 5.56mm bullet ought to leave a 5mm wide hole in the scalp. McLaren must be using Trump Mathematics.

Does McLaren's book have a reference for: "The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width"? Because all I have is Humes' measurement of the scalp wound.

Quote
The rear head entry wound was made by a bullet that was smaller than 6.5 mm in diameter. If Oswald's alleged ammo had caused the wound, it would have been 6.75 mm to 7.5 mm in diameter. Good heavens, just get over this fact and move on.

Humes thought the skull wound probably was a little bigger ("approximately 6 to 7 mm") in width than the scalp wound measurement. It can't be 6mm because that would be the same, not bigger. So now we're easily getting to 6.5 to 7mm for the skull wound.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 05, 2020, 10:29:45 PM
From whatever I have read on the subject the hole always larger than the bullet. The WC would naturally try and convince folks that the hole “shrunk” keep with the lone assassin narrative.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 06, 2020, 01:15:33 AM
“This is where we disagree. All but one of these items of evidence fits very well with a frontal-gunman scenario. I agree that the SS was deeply involved in cover-up activity, but I don't think it had anything to do with Hickey. “

“I see no credible evidence that Hickey fired his gun. Kennedy loyalist Dave Powers was in Hickey's car, and Powers said there was no way he could not have heard Hickey's rifle fire. In fact, none of the occupants in Hickey's car showed any reaction that would be consistent with having just heard an AR-15 fire from their car. I have fired several AR-15s--they are very loud.

Hole in the back of the head, not frontal.  Explosive nature of JFK’s head, either direction.  Hinkleys behavior after and the cover up, why would the SS cover anything up if they didn’t do anything, that makes no sense.  Smoke smelled in the motorcade, could not have come from forward because the shot would have come from the grassy knoll and the wind direction would not support that.
 
Two witnesses saw Hickey with the AR 15 and one said he had thought Hinkley had fired it and both of these witnesses were SS Agents.  There were more witnesses that saw Hinkley with the AR 15, one was on the overpass and he thought Hinkley fired it.
A  5.65 mm round came from behind and  based on Donahue’s study it came from Hinkley’s direction. Hinkley was holding the AR 15.

Powers was running towards JFK’s limo and was grabbing on to the handrail on the back of the limo at the time of the head shot. So he was in no position to witness the shot.

I have fired the M16 also and with the flash suppressor on them they are about a third of the noise level as an M14, granted my memory going back over fifty years is not that sharp but I do remember when I first fired the M16 after months of training with an M14. They are so different in the noise level.

So based on all of this I am saying that Files and Hinkley fired frangible rounds at the same time and probably added to the intensity of the head "explosion" and the jerking backward of the head.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 06, 2020, 02:14:21 AM
If the Commission had used the word "shrunk", you might have a point. But as usual you don't.

They not only used the word "recoil" but also a citation to Humes' testimony. That's where we find out that Humes is actually taking about the skin having elastic recoil, not the bone of the skull. And that's why Bugliosi said it appeared to him to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."

Can you admit anything? Ever? If something "recoils" back to a configuration that is smaller than it was before the recoil occurred, that something has "shrunk." When you are talking about a skull hole that decreases in diameter because of an alleged "recoiling," it is perfectly valid to use the verb "shrunk" when referring to the result of that alleged recoil action. But, like I said, I'd be happy to acknowledge that the WC used the verb "recoil."

Now show us where Humes measured the entry wound on the skull itself.

That's nice. But Humes didn't measure the skull wound. He saw it briefly after reflection and from underneath; no rulers involved.

What?! "Saw it briefly"?! You have no clue what you're talking about. The occipital entry wound was the subject of considerable discussion at the autopsy because a small part of it was contained in a piece of missing bone that arrived later during the autopsy. I covered this in a previous reply.

Anyway, if Humes, Boswell, and Finck had not been certain that the skull wound was the same size as the scalp wound, they could not properly have used the term "corresponding wound" in the autopsy report. That verbiage has specific meaning in forensic language. If Wound A is a different size than Wound B, you would not say that Wound A was a "corresponding wound" to Wound B, and vice versa.


If Humes had measured the entry wound on bare bone,

Now why in the world would he not have measured the entry hole in the skull?! Why would he have ignored such a basic forensic procedure? Since he measured the large defect in the skull, why would he not have measured the entry hole on the skull?

And if, for some inexplicable reason, he did not measure the entry hole in the skull, then he had no basis for saying that the wound was a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound.


why did he guess at the size of it based on the size of the scalp wound:

    "the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this
     case, the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm"

Humes was covering his backside. Read the question to which Humes was responding. He realized that the 6 mm entry wound was a problem because it was allegedly caused by a 6.5 mm bullet.

If Humes had been questioned about this by a competent defense attorney in a trial, he would not have been able to get away with his lame response. The attorney would have asked (1) why the autopsy report neither states nor suggests any doubt about the size of the skull wound, (2) why Finck's report on the autopsy says the occipital entry wound was a "corresponding" wound to the 15 x 6 mm wound in the scalp, and (3) why Humes would have used the phrase "corresponding wound" if there had been any doubt that the two wounds were not both 15 x 6 mm.

Near as I can tell, the two holes "corresponded" in their placement through a brief visual observation. Only the scalp wound was measured. You really think they should have checked the dimensions of a skull entry hole that was directly beneath a scalp entry hole?

Uh, YEAH, that's a basic forensic procedure. You don't just go by the size of the scalp wound, since a scalp wound can differ from the wound beneath it on the skull. Again, why would the doctors have measured the large defect on the skull but not have measured the rear entry hole on the skull? That makes no sense.

Again, in medical-legal/forensic terms, "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding).  If the skull hole had not been 15 x 6 mm, then it would not have "agreed with, matched, or fit" the scalp wound, and Humes could not have referred to it as a "corresponding wound."


Just substitute the word "skull" with "scalp" and it'll then relate to the passage's own Humes citation, his only measurement of the entry wound, skin elasticity, and why Bugliosi thought it was a typo or loose wording.

Really? Too bad Bugliosi didn't explain why the autopsy doctors measured the large defect on the skull and didn't just use the defect's measurement on the scalp. Gee, why would they have done that and not have measured the entry hole in the occipital bone? Why?

I don't see any inference. The paragraph is talking about beveling.

Huh? Did you mean "implication"? I said that readers were left to infer that it was not strange for the entry hole to be smaller than the bullet's diameter. Do you understand the difference between "imply" and "infer." The writer implies, and reader infers.

He's full of crap. It can hardly be "natural elasticity of skin" if a 6.5mm bullet is--in Mclaren's world--supposed to make a scalp wound 7mm wide. Furthermore, elasticity means a 5.56mm bullet ought to leave a 5mm wide hole in the scalp. McLaren must be using Trump Mathematics.

What are you talking about? You might want to go back a re-read McLaren's statement. Did you really not grasp McLaren's straightforward point?

Does McLaren's book have a reference for: "The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width"? Because all I have is Humes' measurement of the scalp wound.

Yeah, the reference is the autopsy report, which says the skull wound was a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound. We also have Finck's report on the autopsy:

Quote
The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone. (p. 1)

Finck was fanatical about precision of language. He would not have used the phrase "corresponding to this lesion" to refer to the entry hole in the occiput if the skull hole had not been the same size as the scalp hole.

Humes thought the skull wound probably was a little bigger ("approximately 6 to 7 mm") in width than the scalp wound measurement.

That is not what he said in the autopsy report. He gave no indication whatsoever that there was any difference in size between the scalp wound and the skull wound. Finck gave no such indication either in his report on the autopsy.

It can't be 6mm because that would be the same, not bigger. So now we're easily getting to 6.5 to 7mm for the skull wound.

You mean it "can't be 6 mm" because it destroys your house-of-cards case. You mean it can't be 6 mm because that would prove that the bullet was a 5.56 mm bullet, which was a more common size of ammo and would have been a better choice of ammo. But, nope, you can't have that.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on August 06, 2020, 02:28:01 AM
Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap.

(https://i.postimg.cc/P5V1wrbX/matching-Moorman-with-autopsy-photo.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 06, 2020, 02:29:39 PM
Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap. JohnM

Again, you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s. Here are just a few of the problems that modern research has uncovered with the autopsy photos of the head:

* F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors never even mentioned.

* The skull x-rays show a sizable amount of frontal bone missing, but no such damage is evident in the extant autopsy photos that show the face and the front of the head (F1, F6, F7, and G1).

* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." (p. 3)

However, neither of the back-of-head photos (F3 and F5) shows any such damage. In F3, the only large defect is clearly above and mostly forward of the right ear. No part of the wound even comes close to the occipital region in F3 and F5.

* The autopsy photos F6, F7, and G1, i.e., the right-profile and top-of-head pictures, show impossible colors. In the color versions of these photos, there are three large bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos, the stripes are white or light gray. This is a photographic impossibility with orthochromatic film. With such film, red turns to black, not to white or light gray. Professional photographer Steve Mills has said the following about this problem:


Quote
Orthochromatic film, unfiltered, records blue very lightly and red very darkly. This makes perfect sense in [autopsy photos] F1 through F5. Yet, here's a supposedly bloodied scalp in F6 and F7 recorded as light gray. This can be done with a red filter on ortho film, but the blood drops on the towel show me this is not the case. The scalp can't be gray and three bloody spots still be dark if a filter was used. It is common to use ortho film in forensic photography to show differences and details in red and blue areas. But this is no proof. The record declares one type of film, and the photos declare either another or fraud. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, p. 584)

Mills goes on to discuss indications of fraud in the Groden color autopsy photos in relation to the stripes and the scalp:

Quote
They [the autopsy photos] also show Groden's color shots to be frauds. Let me explain.

1) Let's say it was pan b/w. F6 and F7 would have to be shot with a blue filter to lighten the stripe. That would darken the supposedly bloody scalp. You can't have it both ways, i.e., light red and light blue, so there's no red filter either. This would not work. So, if it's truly pan film, then the scalp is not bloody skin but brain matter.

2) Let's say it's ortho film. The blue stripe will always be light and the red will always be dark. No filter is required if the scalp is really brain tissue, but a red one is still needed to lighten blood. But here the bloody spots prove this is not the case once again. So do the bloody marks on his shoulder.

So, here's the result: They probably used ortho film and no filtering of any kind. that is brain and not scalp. We can see that no combination of film and filtration can give you b/w photos that will jibe with Groden’s colors. they have to be fake. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, pp. 584-585)

* We now know that numerous autopsy witnesses told the HSCA that the autopsy photos of the head did not show the large head wound that they recalled seeing.

* We now know that when the HSCA FPP showed F3 to Dr. Finck to convince him that he had erred by a staggering 4 inches in his description of the rear head entry wound, Finck would have none of it and even questioned how F3 had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy!

* We now know that nearly every single autopsy witness interviewed by the HSCA said the large head wound was in the back of the head, not on the side or top of the head.

* We now know that several autopsy witnesses drew wound diagrams of the large head wound for the HSCA, and they drew the wound in the back of the head. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who not only watched the autopsy but reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.

* We now know that the autopsy witnesses agreed with the Dallas witnesses that the large wound was in the back of the head, not on the side of the head.

* We now know, thanks to a released WC transcript, that Jackie Kennedy told the WC that on the way to Parkland Hospital, she was trying to hold together the back of her husband's head, and that there was no damage, "nothing," in the front of the head.

* Clint Hill was in the unique position of having seen JFK's large head wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and then again at Bethesda Hospital. He was called to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds, and he once again said the large wound was in the back of the head.

* Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who packed JFK's large head wound with cotton and who then wrapped his head and body for placement in the coffin, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that she saw no damage to the side or top of the head.

* ALL of the Parkland JFK medical treatment reports, written hours after the shooting and dated 11/22/63, say the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head, and four of them specify that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound. This is crucial because cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue.

WC apologists are conditioned to say "they were all mistaken" in response to this massive eyewitness evidence, but reasonable people don't buy that absurd explanation. A few witnesses in any crime will often be mistaken, but we are talking about three groups of witnesses in three different locations who all said the same thing about the large head wound, and most of those witnesses were either federal agents or medical personnel. So the lame line that "they were all mistaken" just will not cut it for any rational, objective person.

And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6 and F7 show impossible colors.


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 06, 2020, 03:10:31 PM
Again, you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s. Here are just a few of the problems that modern research has uncovered with the autopsy photos of the head:

* F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors never even mentioned.

* The skull x-rays show a sizable amount of frontal bone missing, but no such damage is evident in the extant autopsy photos that show the face and the front of the head (F1, F6, F7, and G1).

* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." (p. 3)

However, neither of the back-of-head photos (F3 and F5) shows any such damage. In F3, the only large defect is clearly above and mostly forward of the right ear. No part of the wound even comes close to the occipital region in F3 and F5.

* The autopsy photos F6, F7, and G1, i.e., the right-profile and top-of-head pictures, show impossible colors. In the color versions of these photos, there are three large bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos, the stripes are white or light gray. This is a photographic impossibility with orthochromatic film. With such film, red turns to black, not to white or light gray. Professional photographer Steve Mills has said the following about this problem:


Mills goes on to discuss indications of fraud in the Groden color autopsy photos in relation to the stripes and the scalp:

* We now know that numerous autopsy witnesses told the HSCA that the autopsy photos of the head did not show the large head wound that they recalled seeing.

* We now know that when the HSCA FPP showed F3 to Dr. Finck to convince him that he had erred by a staggering 4 inches in his description of the rear head entry wound, Finck would have none of it and even questioned how F3 had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy!

* We now know that nearly every single autopsy witness interviewed by the HSCA said the large head wound was in the back of the head, not on the side or top of the head.

* We now know that several autopsy witnesses drew wound diagrams of the large head wound for the HSCA, and they drew the wound in the back of the head. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who not only watched the autopsy but reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.

* We now know that the autopsy witnesses agreed with the Dallas witnesses that the large wound was in the back of the head, not on the side of the head.

* We now know, thanks to a released WC transcript, that Jackie Kennedy told the WC that on the way to Parkland Hospital, she was trying to hold together the back of her husband's head, and that there was no damage, "nothing," in the front of the head.

* Clint Hill was in the unique position of having seen JFK's large head wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and then again at Bethesda Hospital. He was called to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds, and he once again said the large wound was in the back of the head.

* Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who packed JFK's large head wound with cotton and who then wrapped his head and body for placement in the coffin, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that she saw no damage to the side or top of the head.

* ALL of the Parkland JFK medical treatment reports, written hours after the shooting and dated 11/22/63, say the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head, and four of them specify that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound. This is crucial because cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue.

WC apologists are conditioned to say "they were all mistaken" in response to this massive eyewitness evidence, but reasonable people don't buy that absurd explanation. A few witnesses in any crime will often be mistaken, but we are talking about three groups of witnesses in three different locations who all said the same thing about the large head wound, and most of those witnesses were either federal agents or medical personnel. So the lame line that "they were all mistaken" just will not cut it for any rational, objective person.

And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6 and F7 show impossible colors.


I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste. At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on August 07, 2020, 12:14:06 AM
I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.

Hi Jerry, I came across a high definition Moorman photo and saw what appeared to be a definite pattern at the back of JFK's head and as usual without any preconceived notion I just wanted to see if there was any correlation between Moorman and the autopsy photos and to nobodies surprise the images appeared to match, which along with all the other corroborating physical evidence is just another nail in the coffin of this bizarre overly complicated conspiracy.

(https://i.postimg.cc/P5V1wrbX/matching-Moorman-with-autopsy-photo.gif)

Quote
At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.

Griffith seems to think that a wall of text which is often not academically peer reviewed is all he needs, but it takes a lot more than that.

JohnM

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2020, 12:45:40 AM
  BS:

All of “Mytton’s” cartoons are based on preconceived notions.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 07, 2020, 05:16:44 PM
I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.

Right, so massive evidence that autopsy photos F3, F5, F6, and F7 have been doctored is what you call "diversion." In your brain, massive evidence that the large head wound was in the back of the head is "diversion." Your only other answer to all this evidence is that "they were all mistaken."

And, uh, just FYI, I copied and pasted only a few lines of that long list of evidence. I typed most of it.


At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.

You should take a few writing courses; learn a little English. While you're at it, get someone to explain to you the difference between "imply" and "infer," because you don't seem to know the difference.

Now, the paragraph you quote and the paragraph before it were summary/closing paragraphs. Yes, I was aware that I had mentioned the items in the second summary paragraph earlier in my long reply, but I had not yet mentioned them in my closing. I guess you could not distinguish between the body of my reply and the closing/summary.

I notice you still have not tried to defend your comical statement that Humes did not need to measure the entry wound in the skull and only glanced at it. How long have you been studying this case? A few weeks? This is the kind of nonsense that one would expect from a newcomer who had only read a handful of books on the case.

One reason that autopsy doctors have to carefully study bullet holes in skulls is to examine them for beveling, chipping, etc. One reason that pathologists have to measure bullet holes in skulls is that the scalp hole and the skull hole will not always correspond.

We both know why you are straining and reaching so badly here: You simply cannot afford to admit that Humes measured the skull hole. Nor can you admit that his use of the term "corresponding wound" was common forensic verbiage to say that the skull hole was the same size as the scalp hole. You can't afford to admit these things because this would mean that the rear head entry wound was not made by a 6.5 mm missile.

And I would bet good money that six months from now, if someone were to post another thread on this issue, you would repeat the same nonsensical claims and just hope that nobody viewing the thread knew better.


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 07, 2020, 08:12:06 PM
Right, so massive evidence that autopsy photos F3, F5, F6, and F7 have been doctored is what you call "diversion."

Well, since I don't think they were doctored and you CTs haven't proven otherwise, it is diversion.

Quote
In your brain, massive evidence that the large head wound was in the back of the head is "diversion." Your only other answer to all this evidence is that "they were all mistaken."

Critics' opinions can be mistaken. Photos and the Zapruder film (all authentic) are more reliable. An example, since you brought it up, is the "back-of-the-head" witnesses:

The McAdams site has been tracking this for years, comparing critics' claims with actual evidence.

Dealey Plaza  Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm)
Photographic Evidence  Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm)
Parkland and Bethesda  Link (http://Parkland and Bethesda)

Quote
And, uh, just FYI, I copied and pasted only a few lines of that long list of evidence. I typed most of it.

You should take a few writing courses;

Like making your font size bigger than everyone else?

Quote
learn a little English. While you're at it, get someone to explain to you the difference between "imply" and "infer," because you don't seem to know the difference.

Mr. Decorum.

Quote
Now, the paragraph you quote and the paragraph before it were summary/closing paragraphs. Yes, I was aware that I had mentioned the items in the second summary paragraph earlier in my long reply, but I had not yet mentioned them in my closing. I guess you could not distinguish between the body of my reply and the closing/summary.

I notice you still have not tried to defend your comical statement that Humes did not need to measure the entry wound in the skull and only glanced at it. How long have you been studying this case? A few weeks? This is the kind of nonsense that one would expect from a newcomer who had only read a handful of books on the case.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a measurement of the bared-bone skull. Maybe the autopsy report, WC or HSCA. Your idea that "corresponding" automatically means he would have measured the bone wound as well doesn't cut it. Not when Humes is telling the Commission:

    "When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
     defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
     had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
     following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
     quite similar to the defect in the skin."

Nothing about a ruler being used to measure the skull wound. It was "quite similar", meaning in appearance and location on the head.

Quote
One reason that autopsy doctors have to carefully study bullet holes in skulls is to examine them for beveling, chipping, etc. One reason that pathologists have to measure bullet holes in skulls is that the scalp hole and the skull hole will not always correspond.

We both know why you are straining and reaching so badly here: You simply cannot afford to admit that Humes measured the skull hole. Nor can you admit that his use of the term "corresponding wound" was common forensic verbiage to say that the skull hole was the same size as the scalp hole.

They actually teach that "corresponding" means confirmed to the micro-millimeter in forensic pathology courses? Gee, who knew.

This is all too mindful of your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

Quote
You can't afford to admit these things because this would mean that the rear head entry wound was not made by a 6.5 mm missile.

And you want to falsely have people believe the scalp measurements were identical to skull measurements never made. That way you can disingenuously claim that a 6.5mm bullet couldn't have caused the skull inshoot.

Quote
And I would bet good money that six months from now, if someone were to post another thread on this issue, you would repeat the same nonsensical claims and just hope that nobody viewing the thread knew better.

Well, a few folks around here are certainly on to you.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 09, 2020, 04:02:44 AM
I had not seen or heard of the “spray” of the tiny fragments before and the direction. Then if that is true then James Files did it after all. I have not seen what a mercury tipped bullet would do to someone’s head but I would like to sew this part of it up.

I do not believe James Files' story. I think his story is full of holes.

I think in the case of Hickey and the secret service, I think they though they did it. Hickeys gun went off at the same time of the head shot, thus the cover up. I don’t know when the particle paths were discovered but I think Hickey might have gone to his grave thinking he killed JFK, poor bastard.

I just do not see any indication that Hickey thought he had shot Kennedy. Hickey's post-assassination behavior is consistent with that of a man who was upset at being falsely accused of having accidentally shot JFK.

As far as you not seeing any credible evidence that Hickey fired the gun: 1. the gun smoke in the motorcade, could not have come from the grassy knoll, wind direction was wrong.

The gun smoke was seen near the fence on the grassy knoll, and there was a railyard with rail cars that would have blocked much of the wind.

2. Several witnesses saw him with the gun and one thought he fired it.

Nobody in the car, including the two Kennedy loyalists--Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell--heard or saw Hickey fire his rifle. Power and O'Donnell later said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Federal agents pressured them into changing their original statements, but later they revealed that they still believed the shots came from the grassy knoll.

The HSCA acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt recording found that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll.


It makes sense he stood up on the back seat, the car accelerated or decelerated and he lost his balance and grabbing for something to hold onto, he squeezed off a round, where it went, who knows.

But the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays indicates that the shot came from the front. Even if one wants to assume the fragment trail goes from back to front, there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the x-rays, which rules out Hickey's rifle. Even Donahue acknowledged that the EOP entry site--the one described in the autopsy report--was too low to line up with the sixth-floor window or with Hickey's rifle.

This scenario works with everything I said happened with a shot from Hickey. Only part of my previous scenario is Hickeys shot did not hit JFK but it explains everything else; smelling gun smoke in the motorcade, seeing Hickey with the gun, etc.

Other problems with the Hickey scenario are (1) that dozens of witnesses reported that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, not the right-parietal area, (2) that the lateral skull x-rays contain a manmade white patch over the right-rear part of the head that was placed there to conceal the right-rear exit wound, and (3) that autopsy photo F8 shows a bullet hole that was not described in the autopsy report and that indicates a shot from the front.

The HSCA said that F8 shows the top and front of the head, i.e., that the camera was aiming at the front part of the right parietal area. But when Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Ebersole, and James Stringer inventoried the autopsy materials in November 1966, they said that F8 was a picture of the back of the head. Their description is especially compelling because Stringer was the one who took the photo. Dr. Mantik, after studying the original photo with a stereo viewer at the National Archives and comparing the photo to the skull x-rays, has confirmed that F8 shows the back of the head.

This is crucial because when you understand that F8 shows the back of the head in the foreview, you understand that it is showing a large wound in the occipital bone, which proves that autopsy photos F3 and F5 have been altered. Dr. Mantik devotes several pages to the correct orientation of F8 in "The Medical Evidence Decoded." I quote from his conclusion:


Quote
The orientation described here is consistent with the historical orientation, with the X-rays, with Humes's comment about the notch, with Boswell's two drawings (one at the autopsy and one for the ARRB), and even with Angel's drawings, but not with Baden's orientation. From this photograph, we can be certain that the back of the head was blown out, quite dramatically in fact, just like all of the witnesses said. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that a frontal headshot led to this injury. This deduction, of course, also corroborates the recollections of all of those new and old witnesses who saw autopsy photographs with such a massive defect, which, in turn, means that other photographs really have disappeared. ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," p. 83)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 09, 2020, 06:01:18 PM
Well, since I don't think they were doctored and you CTs haven't proven otherwise, it is diversion.

We have proved they were doctored. You just won't acknowledge the scientific evidence that they have been doctored.

Critics' opinions can be mistaken. Photos and the Zapruder film (all authentic) are more reliable. An example, since you brought it up, is the "back-of-the-head" witnesses:

The McAdams site has been tracking this for years, comparing critics' claims with actual evidence.

Dealey Plaza  Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm)
Photographic Evidence  Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm)
Parkland and Bethesda  Link (http://Parkland and Bethesda)

If you have to fall back on McAdams' amateurish and misleading research, you know you're in trouble. Tell me:

Where does McAdams address the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB?

Where does he address the 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital treatment reports?

Where does he explain how the mortician, the guy who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the right parietal and temporal region for an orange-sized wound in the occiput?

Where does he explain the manmade white patch over the right-rear part of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, which is 1100 times brighter than any other part of the skull in the autopsy x-rays and in JFK's authentic 1960 skull x-rays?

Where does he explain that in authentic x-rays, the brightest part of the skull is never more than two or three times brighter than the darkest part of the skull?

Where does he explain the OD measurements that have been done on the autopsy skull x-rays by three different medical doctors and that all prove that those x-rays give measurements that are physically impossible for an authentic, unaltered original x-ray?

Where does he explain Dr. Ebersole's report that an occipital bone fragment arrived late in the autopsy?

Where does he explain the vanishing lower fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw?


Like making your font size bigger than everyone else? Mr. Decorum.

Again, if it bothers you so much, don't read my replies.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a measurement of the bared-bone skull. Maybe the autopsy report, WC or HSCA. Your idea that "corresponding" automatically means he would have measured the bone wound as well doesn't cut it. Not when Humes is telling the Commission:

    "When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
     defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
     had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
     following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
     quite similar to the defect in the skin."

Nothing about a ruler being used to measure the skull wound. It was "quite similar", meaning in appearance and location on the head.

They actually teach that "corresponding" means confirmed to the micro-millimeter in forensic pathology courses? Gee, who knew.

I have already quoted a medical dictionary for you that says that in medical usage "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding). Did you forget that? Or were just hoping that people who read your reply would not have read my previous replies?

Two wounds can't "fit" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "match" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "agree with" each other if they are not the same size, right?

You see, the problem is that you just cannot admit that Humes used "corresponding" in its typical medical  meaning of "matching" or "fitting." You claim that Humes simply meant "similar." But if he had meant "similar," he would have said "similar" instead of "corresponding."

I mean, heck, I'm not a doctor, but I would never misuse "corresponding" to mean "similar" even if I were describing, let's say, a hole that started in my siding and continued through my dry wall. If the hole in the siding were, say, 8 x 12 mm, and the hole in the dry wall were 10 x 14 mm, I would not say the hole in the dry wall "corresponded" to the hole in the siding. I would say the dry-wall hole was similar in size to the siding hole, but I would never say the two holes were "corresponding" holes. That's just common sense and good English.


This is all too mindful of your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

Oh, wow. Really? This again? In point of fact, the bunching would have to be virtually millimeter for millimeter. As we both know, and by your own admission, I only slightly modified my argument to say that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in "nearly identical correspondence" instead of "millimeter for millimeter." There is very little difference between "millimeter for millimeter" and "nearly identical correspondence."

I might add that you did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned. At first you claimed they did not. Then, you went silent on the point after I proved that they did.


And you want to falsely have people believe the scalp measurements were identical to skull measurements never made.

You don't know this. You are just assuming this because otherwise your case collapses. Humes's wording, if you're willing to be honest, clearly indicates that he did measure the entry wound in the skull, or else he would not have described the wound as a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound. 

Furthermore, I have asked you several times now to explain why Humes would have measured the large defect in the skull but not the entry wound. Why do you keep ducking this question? Why on earth would Humes have measured the exit wound in the skull but not the entry wound? Why?


That way you can disingenuously claim that a 6.5mm bullet couldn't have caused the skull inshoot.

You're the one being disingenuous. You want to twist "corresponding" to merely mean "similar," even though I've quoted for you a medical dictionary that says "corresponding" means "agreeing with, matching, or fitting." If two wounds are different sizes, they cannot be said to "agree with, fit, or match" each other. But you can't even gather up enough honesty to admit such an obvious, common-sense point.


Well, a few folks around here are certainly on to you.

I am not the one who has been caught posting ludicrous diagrams that destroy my own arguments, such as when you posted the "final" HSCA SBT diagram that showed the alleged magic bullet hitting the body at a downward angle, that put the back wound well above the throat wound, and that put the throat wound noticeably below the throat! 

I am not the one who did not even know that JFK's rear coat and shirt holes align. You are.

I am not the one who denied that the HSCA PEP found only incredibly tiny differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos, even though those miniscule differences are documented for all to see in the HSCA PEP's report, and even though I have posted the measurements twice. You are.

I am not the one who looked right at the HSCA PEP's Penrose measurements and then claimed that the Backyard measurements do not show marked divergences from the Dallas Arrest, Marine, New Orleans, and Russia measurements, even though some of the variances over 200%. You are.

And on and on and on I could go.


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on August 09, 2020, 08:23:53 PM
We have proved they were doctored. You just won't acknowledge the scientific evidence that they have been doctored.

You haven't proved that they were doctored. There is zero scientific evidence that they have been doctored. None. Nada. Zilch. They have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by numerous experts in photographic analysis and by the photographer who took them.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 09, 2020, 08:30:20 PM
We have proved they were doctored. You just won't acknowledge the scientific evidence that they have been doctored.

Scientific? That's rich, coming from someone who I wouldn't be surprised denies climate change and the theory of evolution.

Quote
If you have to fall back on McAdams' amateurish and misleading research, you know you're in trouble. Tell me:

Where does McAdams address the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB?

Where does he address the 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital treatment reports?

Where does he explain how the mortician, the guy who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the right parietal and temporal region for an orange-sized wound in the occiput?

Where does he explain the manmade white patch over the right-rear part of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, which is 1100 times brighter than any other part of the skull in the autopsy x-rays and in JFK's authentic 1960 skull x-rays?

Where does he explain that in authentic x-rays, the brightest part of the skull is never more than two or three times brighter than the darkest part of the skull?

Where does he explain the OD measurements that have been done on the autopsy skull x-rays by three different medical doctors and that all prove that those x-rays give measurements that are physically impossible for an authentic, unaltered original x-ray?

Where does he explain Dr. Ebersole's report that an occipital bone fragment arrived late in the autopsy?

Where does he explain the vanishing lower fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw?


So nothing wrong with the Back-of-the-Head analysis I pointed you to?

Quote
Again, if it bothers you so much, don't read my replies.

I have already quoted a medical dictionary for you that says that in medical usage "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding). Did you forget that? Or were just hoping that people who read your reply would not have read my previous replies?

Two wounds can't "fit" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "match" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "agree with" each other if they are not the same size, right?

Again, you fail to answer why Humes didn't provide any skull-entry measurements and why he was telling the Commission:

    "When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
     defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
     had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
     following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
     quite similar to the defect in the skin."

Why does Humes refer to the bone entry wound as "quite similar" to the scalp wound rather than identical if he had measurements for both? Why does Humes refer to elastic recoil of skin if he had a 6mm width of the bone wound?

Quote
You see, the problem is that you just cannot admit that Humes used "corresponding" in its typical medical  meaning of "matching" or "fitting." You claim that Humes simply meant "similar." But if he had meant "similar," he would have said "similar" instead of "corresponding."

Try to focus on facts, not semantics.

Quote
I mean, heck, I'm not a doctor, but I would never misuse "corresponding" to mean "similar" even if I were describing, let's say, a hole that started in my siding and continued through my dry wall. If the hole in the siding were, say, 8 x 12 mm, and the hole in the dry wall were 10 x 14 mm, I would not say the hole in the dry wall "corresponded" to the hole in the siding. I would say the dry-wall hole was similar in size to the siding hole, but I would never say the two holes were "corresponding" holes. That's just common sense and good English.

Oh, wow. Really? This again? In point of fact, the bunching would have to be virtually millimeter for millimeter. As we both know, and by your own admission, I only slightly modified my argument to say that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in "nearly identical correspondence" instead of "millimeter for millimeter." There is very little difference between "millimeter for millimeter" and "nearly identical correspondence."

You actually wrote "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Even taking the measurements you posted:

    "The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar
     and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt
      is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline."

... means a vertical difference of 9mm and lateral difference of about 15mm. I don't see how you can equate that with "millimeter for millimeter". You must be doing this just for the sake of argument. Or you have a serious resistance to schooling.

Quote
I might add that you did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned. At first you claimed they did not. Then, you went silent on the point after I proved that they did.

I "did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned" and that I "claimed they did not"? I said the "jacket and shirt had similar but naturally-random displacements, not exact". A review of our discussion will show that what t I took issue with was your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

Just say you were wrong, Donald. Rather than justifying it in need of only a slightly modification.

Quote
You don't know this. You are just assuming this because otherwise your case collapses. Humes's wording, if you're willing to be honest, clearly indicates that he did measure the entry wound in the skull, or else he would not have described the wound as a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound. 

Furthermore, I have asked you several times now to explain why Humes would have measured the large defect in the skull but not the entry wound. Why do you keep ducking this question? Why on earth would Humes have measured the exit wound in the skull but not the entry wound? Why?

Humes measured the large gaping wound before the scalp was reflected. The only measurements after reflection mentioned in the autopsy report are that of a fracture line and "numerous fragments".

Quote
You're the one being disingenuous. You want to twist "corresponding" to merely mean "similar," even though I've quoted for you a medical dictionary that says "corresponding" means "agreeing with, matching, or fitting." If two wounds are different sizes, they cannot be said to "agree with, fit, or match" each other. But you can't even gather up enough honesty to admit such an obvious, common-sense point.

I am not the one who has been caught posting ludicrous diagrams that destroy my own arguments, such as when you posted the "final" HSCA SBT diagram that showed the alleged magic bullet hitting the body at a downward angle,

The "upward angle" was to do with Clyde Snow's anatomical position only. Canning used a "wounding position" for the President's posture.

Quote
that put the back wound well above the throat wound, and that put the throat wound noticeably below the throat!

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)  (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145-throat-area-labelled.jpg)

Like Canning and the HSCA would approve a drawing with the exit point below the throat.

Quote
I am not the one who did not even know that JFK's rear coat and shirt holes align. You are.

I am not the one who denied that the HSCA PEP found only incredibly tiny differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos, even though those miniscule differences are documented for all to see in the HSCA PEP's report, and even though I have posted the measurements twice. You are.

I am not the one who looked right at the HSCA PEP's Penrose measurements and then claimed that the Backyard measurements do not show marked divergences from the Dallas Arrest, Marine, New Orleans, and Russia measurements, even though some of the variances over 200%. You are.

And on and on and on I could go.

The fence area is almost on the same plane as the camera plane. If the same background were used, as some critics claimed, there should be zero differences. But changes in camera/subject position, the tilt of the camera and so forth induced the minor differences the HSCA determined.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scattergram.gif)

Depends on how one looks at the Penrose graph. I see a cluster for all the Oswald photos in one corner. You, on the other hand, magnify a corner view. You really think Oswald's head and features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos?

The Backyard Photos differed from the others in clarity, shadow cast, resolution, etc. And so their position on the graph was due to less precise measurement of features.

     Dr. SNOW: The exactness of the approach depends to a large extent on the quality
          of materials that we are given. If the photographs are of poor quality or if there is
          variation in the subject's pose or the apparent age and features of that sort, we
          are apt to be less firm in our conclusions than we are if we are given good quality
          photographs of the individual and uniform poses.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 09, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
There is a fascinating and revealing follow-up to be told about the November 1966 review of the autopsy materials. As I mentioned earlier, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed the back of the head, i.e., that the back of the head was the area that was closest to the camera when the photo was taken. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture.

Well, someone figured out that admitting that F8 was any kind of a back-of-the-head photo was devastating to the autopsy report. So, less than three months later, there was a second review of the autopsy materials, only this time, according to the report on the review, only Humes and Boswell did the review.

The second review allegedly occurred on January 26, 1967. Guess what happened? Just take a guess. According to the memo that Humes and Boswell signed about the review, Humes and Boswell now decided that F8 showed the right parietal exit wound described in the autopsy report, i.e., that it was taken from a point in front of the head to show the exit wound on the right side of the head!

When the ARRB asked Humes and Boswell about this stunning change, their answers were equally stunning: They both said they were certain that an autopsy photo had been taken of the occipital region after the brain had been removed, and that that occipital-region photo showed the EOP entry site. Moreover, Humes said he did not remember doing the second review of the autopsy materials! He remembered doing the first review, but not the second review, and Boswell, who was sitting right next to Humes during this ARRB interview, did not contradict him. Furthermore, when they were then asked during the ARRB interview to orient F8, they said they could not do so, that the picture was too confusing, and Boswell opined that it was “terrible” photo.

For one thing, these facts raise the question of whether there really was a January 1967 review of the autopsy materials, and of whether Humes and Boswell were just ordered to sign a memo that documented a review that never happened. Of course, it could be that the review did occur that the Humes and Boswell just did not want to admit that they had so drastically contradicted their November 1966 review.

Both Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. David Mantik have viewed the original F8 photo in the National Archives. They have confirmed that it is a photo of the back of the head and that it shows a substantial amount of occipital bone missing. They note that the original F8 in the Archives is an uncropped version of the published version of F8, and that the uncropped original makes it easier to determine the photo’s orientation. Dr. Chesser:


Quote
The layer of abdominal wall fat noted above is cropped out of the Fox copies, but was clearly visible on the archive photos. The layer of fat allows orientation to the angle of the camera, and makes it much easier to orient oneself to the view of the skull. The photographer was situated at the head of the table, directing the camera toward the feet, and focusing on the inner skull. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)

Dr. Mantik provides a detailed analysis of the F8 photo in “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” pp. 80-83. Dr. Mantik studied F8 and its “near-twin” photo at the National Archives using a stereo viewer. By stereo viewing and by comparing F8 with the skull x-rays, he was able to establish conclusively that F8 shows that considerable bone is missing from the occipital region:

Quote
In this section I present proof that this photograph (B& W # 17, # 18 and color #44, #45 in the current collection) shows the posterior skull. Even Robert McClelland, M.D., insisted, after his visit to the Archives, that the collection included a view of the large hole as seen at Parkland Hospital. It must have been F8. During their initial inventory review (signed on 10 November 1966), the pathologists labeled this as a posterior view: "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp." Furthermore, in his ARRB deposition (reported to me by Douglas Home), Humes located the entry wound (in the posterior skull) toward the bottom of this photograph (as oriented here). This agrees with my interpretation, but disagrees with Baden, who described it more as a view from the left side. . . .

On the other hand, if F8 is the back of the head, then the line segment BA is the mid-saggital line. There is further confirmation that this is the correct. While at the Archives, I viewed this photograph and its near twin (most views are pairs, taken with the camera slightly displaced in successive views) with a stereo viewer, which, for this view, is particularly illuminating. The bone surface (left of midline) was quite rounded, as would be expected for the occiput. In addition, the fractured bone islands at the right front (labeled C and D) could now be appreciated in 3D. After some staring, I realized that there were only two, and that they corresponded to the two bone islands on the frontal X-ray (also labeled C and D). Their sizes, shapes, and locations all fit perfectly. But one additional feature surprised me. In the color photographs at the Archives, there was more to see beyond the top edge of the film than is visible here. I finally realized that I was looking tangentially across the chest and abdomen. I could actually see a nipple (extending out into space in 3D) and the biggest surprise; I could see fat pads folded back from the abdominal incision. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on August 09, 2020, 10:07:24 PM
There is a fascinating and revealing follow-up to be told about the November 1966 review of the autopsy materials. As I mentioned earlier, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed the back of the head, i.e., that the back of the head was the area that was closest to the camera when the photo was taken. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture.

Well, someone figured out that admitting that F8 was any kind of a back-of-the-head photo was devastating to the autopsy report. So, less than three months later, there was a second review of the autopsy materials, only this time, according to the report on the review, only Humes and Boswell did the review.

The second review allegedly occurred on January 26, 1967. Guess what happened? Just take a guess. According to the memo that Humes and Boswell signed about the review, Humes and Boswell now decided that F8 showed the right parietal exit wound described in the autopsy report, i.e., that it was taken from a point in front of the head to show the exit wound on the right side of the head!

When the ARRB asked Humes and Boswell about this stunning change, their answers were equally stunning: They both said they were certain that an autopsy photo had been taken of the occipital region after the brain had been removed, and that that occipital-region photo showed the EOP entry site. Moreover, Humes said he did not remember doing the second review of the autopsy materials! He remembered doing the first review, but not the second review, and Boswell, who was sitting right next to Humes during this ARRB interview, did not contradict him. Furthermore, when they were then asked during the ARRB interview to orient F8, they said they could not do so, that the picture was too confusing, and Boswell opined that it was “terrible” photo.

For one thing, these facts raise the question of whether there really was a January 1967 review of the autopsy materials, and of whether Humes and Boswell were just ordered to sign a memo that documented a review that never happened. Of course, it could be that the review did occur that the Humes and Boswell just did not want to admit that they had so drastically contradicted their November 1966 review.

Both Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. David Mantik have viewed the original F8 photo in the National Archives. They have confirmed that it is a photo of the back of the head and that it shows a substantial amount of occipital bone missing. They note that the original F8 in the Archives is an uncropped version of the published version of F8, and that the uncropped original makes it easier to determine the photo’s orientation. Dr. Chesser:


Dr. Mantik provides a detailed analysis of the F8 photo in “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” pp. 80-83. Dr. Mantik studied F8 and its “near-twin” photo at the National Archives using a stereo viewer. By stereo viewing and by comparing F8 with the skull x-rays, he was able to establish conclusively that F8 shows that considerable bone is missing from the occipital region:

Numerous pathologists have looked at that autopsy photo and there is no consensus on whether it is of the front or the back of the head. So, it's not surprising that Humes and Boswell had trouble with it as well.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 10, 2020, 01:54:56 AM
 "I do not believe James Files' story. I think his story is full of holes."

I was leery of Files also but now that I see proof of a shot from the grassy knoll, whether it was him or someone else it proves it was a conspiracy. I think the shooter on the grassy knoll was there as insurance in case the shooter in the 6th didn’t finish him off.


"I just do not see any indication that Hickey thought he had shot Kennedy. Hickey's post-assassination behavior is consistent with that of a man who was upset at being falsely accused of having accidentally shot JFK."

Why did he act the way he did when Bonar Menninger approached him. Why didn’t he sit down with him and explain what happened. No, too many people said that they thought he fired the gun. And why the cover up.



"The gun smoke was seen near the fence on the grassy knoll, and there was a rail yard with rail cars that would have blocked much of the wind."


A lot of people saw the smoke on the grassy knoll but the wind direction was such that it was blowing in line with the motorcade and the shot from the grassy knoll was almost perpendicular to the motorcade so I see no way of that smoke reaching the motorcade.

 
"Nobody in the car, including the two Kennedy loyalists--Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell--heard or saw Hickey fire his rifle. Power and O'Donnell later said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Federal agents pressured them into changing their original statements, but later they revealed that they still believed the shots came from the grassy knoll".

At the time of the head shot Dave Powers was just about at the limo and had he been there a second or two sooner he would have taken the hit. Ken O’Donnell was looking to the right at the time so he wouldn’t have seen it.


"But the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays indicates that the shot came from the front. Even if one wants to assume the fragment trail goes from back to front, there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the x-rays, which rules out Hickey's rifle. Even Donahue acknowledged that the EOP entry site--the one described in the autopsy report--was too low to line up with the sixth-floor window or with Hickey's rifle.
A shot did come from the front and I believe from the back also. During the autopsy they measured a 6mm dia hole in the back of his head very well could include Hickeys rifle."


“”According to the JFK autopsy report:
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
This was reported as the 'entry wound' of the fatal head-shot bullet.””


So you have two entry wounds and if I recall correctly, there was a “spray” from the back and from the front.  And you said yourself “Even Donahue acknowledged that the EOP entry site--the one described in the autopsy report--was too low to line up with the sixth-floor window or with Hickey's rifle.” Implying the shot was from the rear. So two head shots probably at exactly the same time.


"Other problems with the Hickey scenario are (1) that dozens of witnesses reported that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, not the right-parietal area"
 (http://)

If I could figure out how to up load a picture or two they would show that the large wound was in the side of the head, forward of the ear.

 
So I have to conclude that JFK was hit twice in the head one from the grassy knoll and one from behind. There was a gun behind in the hand of Hickey that witnesses thought he had fired and many witnesses that smelled gun smoke. Had someone in Hickey’s position in the motorcade fired a weapon, with the wind direction, the people behind him would have smelled gun smoke, and many did.
There has never been any mention of another gun of a caliber smaller than 6.5mm, Hickey was the only one holding one.
Jean Hill – Saw JFK grab his chest and fall forward and she thinks she saw men in plain clothes shooting back. Agent Winston rides in the front of JFK in the lead car. He noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow up car, “I first thought that he had fired it”. Eight other witnesses saw Hickey with the gun, many of them saw him standing up and them fall back down.
 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 10, 2020, 04:08:21 PM
Scientific? That's rich, coming from someone who I wouldn't be surprised denies climate change and the theory of evolution.

I take it this is going to be your fallback dodge every time I ask you why you have not addressed the scientific evidence developed by medical experts/scientists such as Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Ryan, Weatherly, Charnin, Costella, Chambers, etc., etc.?

So nothing wrong with the Back-of-the-Head analysis I pointed you to?

McAdams' "analysis" does not even touch most of the relevant evidence. That is why I asked you to tell me where McAdams addresses the evidence mentioned in the list of questions that I posed to you, all of which you snipped and ducked.

How can anyone credibly discuss the autopsy materials without first explaining the hard scientific evidence that the white patch in the right-rear on the lateral skull x-rays is indisputably manmade? How can anyone dare to defend the lone-gunman fiction about the large head wound without addressing the fact that it has been firmly established that autopsy photo F8 shows considerable bone missing from the occiput?

As I've said before, it's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You don't realize--or don't care--that your claims have been turned into myths by a mountain of new research and new disclosures.[/quote]

Again, you fail to answer why Humes didn't provide any skull-entry measurements and why he was telling the Commission:

    "When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
     defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
     had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
     following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
     quite similar to the defect in the skin."

Why does Humes refer to the bone entry wound as "quite similar" to the scalp wound rather than identical if he had measurements for both? Why does Humes refer to elastic recoil of skin if he had a 6mm width of the bone wound?

And I again point out that this is not what Humes said in the autopsy report. If you admit the meaning of the medical terms he uses, he *did* provide a measurement for the rear entry hole in the skull--he did so by specifying that it was a corresponding wound to the wound in the scalp.

Try to focus on facts, not semantics.

Medical definitions are not "semantics." (Well, maybe to you they are.) There is nothing semantical about the definition of "corresponding" that I quoted from a medical dictionary. It is straightforward. You just can't admit it because you are pathologically determined to cling to the myth that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet hit JFK in the back of the head, never mind that it behaved nothing like an FMJ bullet.

I’m guessing you are not aware that we now know that at the autopsy, even the autopsy doctors noted that the head bullet did not behave like an FMJ missile.


You actually wrote "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Even taking the measurements you posted:

    "The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar
     and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt
      is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline."

... means a vertical difference of 9mm and lateral difference of about 15mm. I don't see how you can equate that with "millimeter for millimeter". You must be doing this just for the sake of argument. Or you have a serious resistance to schooling.

Here we go again with your repeating claims that have already been refuted, and that I have refuted in this forum. As I already documented for you, Frazier said the holes overlap and form a single bullet hole. He said this in plain English. I quoted his testimony to you.

So, now that we've reinvented the wheel because of your refusal to be honest, I will repeat the point that the fact that the holes overlap almost perfectly and form a single hole, the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in nearly perfect correspondence, and would have had to bunch over 2 inches, to produce a single hole that was at least 2 inches below the WC's back-wound location.


I "did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned" and that I "claimed they did not"? I said the "jacket and shirt had similar but naturally-random displacements, not exact".

A review of our discussion will show that what t I took issue with was your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

When I said that the coat and shirt holes overlapped and aligned with each other, you said this was “kooky.” Remember that? Then, after I quoted Frazier to you on this point, you back-peddled and claimed that you were only talking about my statement that the clothing bunching would have had to be millimeter-for-millimeter.

Every single researcher who has examined JFK’s coat and shirt at the National Archives has said that the two holes overlap and align almost perfectly, that they are only a fraction of faction of an inch from overlapping and aligning perfectly, just as Frazier explained to the WC.


Just say you were wrong, Donald. Rather than justifying it in need of only a slightly modification.

But you are the one who was way off, not I. I was much closer to the fact of the matter than you were. You initially denied that the two holes even aligned and overlapped. When I quoted Frazier to prove otherwise, you then announced that, oh, you were only talking about how closely the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in correspondence with each other.

You are doing all of this ducking and dodging and evasion to avoid dealing with the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in almost perfect correspondence with each other, a fantastically far-fetched proposition.


Humes measured the large gaping wound before the scalp was reflected. The only measurements after reflection mentioned in the autopsy report are that of a fracture line and "numerous fragments".

Nope. Sorry. Go read Boswell’s ARRB testimony. He made it clear that they measured the defect and determined the amount of missing bone after they had reflected the scalp (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, pp. 63-65). Boswell pointed out that the 10 mm x 17 mm measurement was done on the scalp but that the 10 mm x 19 mm measurement was done “when the scalp is reflected” (p. 64).

Furthermore, when the ARRB asked Boswell if he still believed that the rear head entry wound was 15 mm x 6 mm and was 2.5 cm to the right and “slightly above” the EOP, he left no doubt that he did. Boswell spent considerable time talking about the EOP entry wound with the ARRB, and never once, not one single time, did he even hint that its size in the skull was any different than its size in the scalp, whereas he did specify this when it came to the large defect.

I notice that you long ago snipped and have continued to ignore Dr. Finck’s report to Gen. Blumberg, where Finck, who was a fanatic about precision of language, likewise said that the scalp wound corresponded to the skull wound:

Quote
The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone. (p. 1)

Finck, who actually was a forensic pathologist and had some experience with gunshot autopsies, would not have said the skull wound corresponded to the scalp wound if they had differed in size or shape.

And are you ever going to explain what happened to the low/EOP fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw on the lateral skull x-rays at the autopsy? Under the fiercest and most skeptical questioning by the HSCA and the ARRB, they doggedly insisted that the only fragment trail they saw was the one they described in the autopsy report, even though no such trail now appears on the skull x-rays. Gee, where did it go? WC apologists have only two possible answers: (1) the autopsy doctors were so blitheringly incompetent that they “mistook” the EOP fragment trail for a fragment trail that was actually a whopping 4 inches higher in the lateral skull x-rays, or (2) they simply lied about the fragment trail and ignored the fragment trail now visible on the lateral skull x-rays.


I The "upward angle" was to do with Clyde Snow's anatomical position only. Canning used a "wounding position" for the President's posture.

LOL! Do you know what “anatomical position” means? Google it. This only makes your argument more ridiculous.

I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle. I have already showed you the HSCA FPP’s SBT diagram, which leans JFK far forward to make the “slightly upward” trajectory work. But Canning’s SBT trajectory diagram not only ignores this but has JFK sitting straight up and has the back wound above the throat wound and puts the exit point clearly below the throat! We both know you can see these things.


I Like Canning and the HSCA would approve a drawing with the exit point below the throat.

But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.

It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.

(https://miketgriffith.com/files/sbtbogus3.jpg)

Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.


The fence area is almost on the same plane as the camera plane. If the same background were used, as some critics claimed, there should be zero differences. But changes in camera/subject position, the tilt of the camera and so forth induced the minor differences the HSCA determined.

You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted. The problem, which you have again ducked, is that there is no way in the world that the distance differences would be so tiny if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged. The distances would be far, far greater in every aspect/angle (yaw, pitch, and roll angles).

We are still waiting for some WC apologist to do a reenactment where they use an Imperial Reflex camera, take three photos, and hand the camera back and forth between each exposure, and produce photos that show the same incredibly tiny distances between background objects. I have already quoted the HSCA PEP’s own parallax measurements on those amazingly tiny differences in two other replies.


(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scattergram.gif)

Depends on how one looks at the Penrose graph. I see a cluster for all the Oswald photos in one corner. You, on the other hand, magnify a corner view. You really think Oswald's head and features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos?

The Backyard Photos differed from the others in clarity, shadow cast, resolution, etc. And so their position on the graph was due to less precise measurement of features.

     Dr. SNOW: The exactness of the approach depends to a large extent on the quality
          of materials that we are given. If the photographs are of poor quality or if there is
          variation in the subject's pose or the apparent age and features of that sort, we
          are apt to be less firm in our conclusions than we are if we are given good quality
          photographs of the individual and uniform poses.

I already answered this nonsense. Allow me to quote part of what I wrote the last time you posted these arguments:

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that the Backyard cluster is over 200% divergent from the Dallas Arrest cluster in both distance and shape. You keep dancing around this central fact. And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.

Aren't all photo sets roughly-equal in divergence from the Russia photo set. Doesn't the New Orleans photo set almost match the "Mean Distance" of the Backyard Photos?

You must be kidding. The "mean distance"?! Do you know how to read a graph? Do you not see the numbers on each line of the graph? Look at the graph again and you should be able to discern these numbers:

Dallas Arrest: 0 shape distance, 0 size distance
Marine: 0.5 shape distance, 0.020/0.025 size distance
New Orleans: 1.6 shape distance, 0.06/0.07 size distance
Russia: 0.9 shape distance, 0.19 size distance
Backyard: 1.75/1.8 shape distance, 0.31/0.32 size distance

Now, the closest of the Oswald clusters to the Backyard cluster is the New Orleans cluster, but even it diverges by 9% in shape distance and by 250% in size distance from the Backyard cluster.

If the backyard figure's face Penrose measurements were reasonably similar to those of the face seen in the Dallas arrest photos, you would not have these huge variations. And the variations would be even greater if the measurements had included those of the chin, nose, and ear lobes.


Now, to post this cherry-picked nonsense, you either don't grasp the basics about the Penrose analysis or you are hoping that our readers here are so gullible and math challenged that they will ignore the plainly obvious huge divergences seen on the graph and will somehow instead be impressed with your three cherry-picked sets of measurements.

   "There some missing values for the three profile views of Oswald. This is because
    certain measurements necessary for calculating these indices cannot be obtained
    from a profile photograph. Also, a few indices could not be calculated for the
    full-face photographs because lighting, image clarity, or other factors would not
    permit the necessary measurements to be made with sufficient accuracy."

LOL! Right. . . .  Yeah. . . .  And it was just a whopping, cosmic, incredible coincidence that the only three measurements that were omitted from the Penrose analysis were those of the same three areas that critics and photographic experts have identified as problematic: the chin width, the nose length, and the lobe length! I'd be willing to bet good money that even the dumbest Southern "cracker" who looked at the backyard photos would have enough basic intelligence to see that Snow's excuse is laughable.

Do tell me why they could not have gotten these measurements from 133-A-DeM or from 133-A-Stovall or from 133-C. 133-C is an 8 x 10 print. 133-A-Stovall is a 5 x 8 print and has better resolution than 133-A or 133-B. Let's see you stammer out some ridiculous excuse for why the nose, chin, and ear lobes are not clear enough in those photos to get those measurements. You simply must be kidding.

And, again, just imagine how much greater the divergence between the Dallas Arrest cluster and the Backyard cluster would have been if those measurements had been included.




Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Tim Nickerson on August 10, 2020, 07:38:21 PM

I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle.

That was not a finding of the FPP.

Quote
But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.

It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.

(https://miketgriffith.com/files/sbtbogus3.jpg)

Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.


That is a poor diagram, to be sure. As you noted , it wrongly has Kennedy in a fully upright position. When in reality, he was slouched forward from between 11 and 18 degrees. Also, it has the vertical angle of trajectory at about 20 degrees. It does not account for the 3 degree slope of the street. They have the position of the entry wound about right but the exit wound is way too low.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on August 11, 2020, 12:15:14 AM
You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted.

OMG, why the deception? The keystone theory has been thoroughly refuted and when I demonstrated the massive amount of parallax changes in the backyard photos you endorsed my evidence(see below), now you're back to square one and peddling your original BS?

Yes, of course, the camera changed positions for each picture.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)

Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 11, 2020, 12:51:14 AM
I take it this is going to be your fallback dodge every time I ask you why you have not addressed the scientific evidence developed by medical experts/scientists such as Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Ryan, Weatherly, Charnin, Costella, Chambers, etc., etc.?

Remember your ringing endorsement of "Dr. Gerald McKnight, a professor emeritus of history at Hood College in Maryland"? He supposedly backed up your "point that one of the nurses later stated that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie." How did that turn out?

The McAdams site has some revealing insights on your "expert" Gary Aguilar's "Back-of-the-Head" witness claims:

Witness  Aguilar  McAdams
Dr Marion Jenkins  skull wound rearward on the right side  So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's not sure which.
Dr James Carrico  Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath 
  • As he did with Jenkins, Aguilar ignores the "right side" statement
  • This from 7 HSCA 278. So it seems it was *above* the ear, extending "almost from the crown of the head."
Dr David Osborne  Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull"  But Aguilar does not mention -- perhaps because he's not aware of -- Osborne's interview with the HSCA. It's Record Number 180-10102-10415, Agency File Number 013623.
   The document reports "In regard to the head wound Osborne said that there was no question that the bullet entered the back of the head and blew the top off of the head."
   Why Aguilar would list so clear a "top of the head" witness as being a "back of the head" witness is puzzling.
Capt James Stover  Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull" 
  • The interesting thing about this is the fact that Aguilar could classify a witness who quite clearly said "top of the head" as a "back of the head" witness.
  • "Stover recalled seeing . . . a severe wound to the top of the head."
Dr Robert Grossman  He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput 
  • So while Groden and Livingstone admit that Grossman remembered seeing two wounds, the "large defect in the parietal area above the right ear" is tossed down the Memory Hole. The wound that Grossman remembered in the occiput has become, in Groden and Livingstone's retelling, the "large" wound.
  • [When Dr Clark showed Grossman the President's head, Grossman recalled]:
    "Then it was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited.
  • Globe interview also has Grossman saying "I could have been wrong" about the smaller ("about one-and-a-quarter inches in diameter") occiput wound.
Dr Charles Baxter  [In] a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." [In testimony], that sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) 
  • Or Baxter has simply decided that "occipital" was wrong.
  • Baxter [in testimony] then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Dr Paul Peters
  "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. 
  • [At] the National Archives in 1988 to view the autopsy photos and x-rays for NOVA, he said: "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."
  • Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong."

"Dr" John Costella? LOL! He who thinks the sign posts are unnatural and fakery. Actually, it's all to do with the pin-cushioning effect.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/59/63/9pNRwQo7_o.jpg)

The Stemmons Frwy sign itself had tilted a bit but the changes in tilt as the film panned are not suspicious.

Quote
McAdams' "analysis" does not even touch most of the relevant evidence. That is why I asked you to tell me where McAdams addresses the evidence mentioned in the list of questions that I posed to you, all of which you snipped and ducked.

Speaking of "ducking" and "dodging", we're waiting for you to answer this question:

    "What was the name of the nurse, and where can we read her statement on the matter?"

The question was in regards to your statement that: "one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie knot." Yes, you mentioned Henry Hurt ("That's because they were not bullet holes but slits made by the nurses who hurriedly cut off Kennedy's clothing, as one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt.") but his book merely says:

    "They are slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the
     President's necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed
     this, adding impressive credence to Weisberg's observation."

The footnote chiefly references Weisberg, not some "confirmation" made to Hurt personally.

Quote
How can anyone credibly discuss the autopsy materials without first explaining the hard scientific evidence that the white patch in the right-rear on the lateral skull x-rays is indisputably manmade? How can anyone dare to defend the lone-gunman fiction about the large head wound without addressing the fact that it has been firmly established that autopsy photo F8 shows considerable bone missing from the occiput?

When claims like that appear in a peer-reviewed article or are confirmed by a distinguished panel of forensic pathologists and photography experts, let us know.

Quote
As I've said before, it's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You don't realize--or don't care--that your claims have been turned into myths by a mountain of new research and new disclosures.

Sorry, but advances in 3D modeling and photo-analysis by competent people generally go the LN way.

Quote
And I again point out that this is not what Humes said in the autopsy report. If you admit the meaning of the medical terms he uses, he *did* provide a measurement for the rear entry hole in the skull--he did so by specifying that it was a corresponding wound to the wound in the scalp.

Medical definitions are not "semantics." (Well, maybe to you they are.) There is nothing semantical about the definition of "corresponding" that I quoted from a medical dictionary. It is straightforward. You just can't admit it because you are pathologically determined to cling to the myth that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet hit JFK in the back of the head, never mind that it behaved nothing like an FMJ bullet.

So your "evidence" that Humes measured the bone entry wound is your own interpretation of the word "corresponding"? Strangely like how Weisberg got it in his mind that a nurse and Dr. Carrico "confirmed" that scalpels were used to remove the President's clothing.

Quote
I’m guessing you are not aware that we now know that at the autopsy, even the autopsy doctors noted that the head bullet did not behave like an FMJ missile.

Here we go again with your repeating claims that have already been refuted, and that I have refuted in this forum. As I already documented for you, Frazier said the holes overlap and form a single bullet hole. He said this in plain English. I quoted his testimony to you.

So it was a bullet hole. Thanks.

Quote
So, now that we've reinvented the wheel because of your refusal to be honest, I will repeat the point that the fact that the holes overlap almost perfectly and form a single hole, the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in nearly perfect correspondence, and would have had to bunch over 2 inches, to produce a single hole that was at least 2 inches below the WC's back-wound location.

When I said that the coat and shirt holes overlapped and aligned with each other, you said this was “kooky.” Remember that? Then, after I quoted Frazier to you on this point, you back-peddled and claimed that you were only talking about my statement that the clothing bunching would have had to be millimeter-for-millimeter.

Your post of July 9 read:
    "JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate
     the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have
     bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat."

My response:
    "The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt
     are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky."

Your response:
     "I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly?"

My response:
    "I'm certainly unaware the holes in the President's jacket and shirt exist in
     "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Can you provide measurements
     to prove your statement? Or were you just trading in absolutes and hyperbole
     like Wecht and Trump?"

Quote
Every single researcher who has examined JFK’s coat and shirt at the National Archives has said that the two holes overlap and align almost perfectly, that they are only a fraction of faction of an inch from overlapping and aligning perfectly, just as Frazier explained to the WC.

But someone who claimed the shirt would "have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat" and "the coat and shirt holes line up exactly" would not be honestly stating the facts.

Quote
But you are the one who was way off, not I. I was much closer to the fact of the matter than you were. You initially denied that the two holes even aligned and overlapped. When I quoted Frazier to prove otherwise, you then announced that, oh, you were only talking about how closely the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in correspondence with each other.

The coat and jacket did bunch, about an inch, as seen in Croft and motorcade photos where Kennedy's right arm is as it is in the Zapruder film. An inch-high bunch with raise up the back of the clothing by two inches, as an inch-high bunch requires an inch of material on each side of it.

Quote
You are doing all of this ducking and dodging and evasion to avoid dealing with the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in almost perfect correspondence with each other, a fantastically far-fetched proposition.

Another month; a different forum and you'll be back to "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert".

Quote
Nope. Sorry. Go read Boswell’s ARRB testimony. He made it clear that they measured the defect and determined the amount of missing bone after they had reflected the scalp (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, pp. 63-65). Boswell pointed out that the 10 mm x 17 mm measurement was done on the scalp but that the 10 mm x 19 mm measurement was done “when the scalp is reflected” (p. 64).

Furthermore, when the ARRB asked Boswell if he still believed that the rear head entry wound was 15 mm x 6 mm and was 2.5 cm to the right and “slightly above” the EOP, he left no doubt that he did. Boswell spent considerable time talking about the EOP entry wound with the ARRB, and never once, not one single time, did he even hint that its size in the skull was any different than its size in the scalp, whereas he did specify this when it came to the large defect.

That could just as well mean Boswell had a skull measurement for the gaping wound and none for the entry wound.

Quote
I notice that you long ago snipped and have continued to ignore Dr. Finck’s report to Gen. Blumberg, where Finck, who was a fanatic about precision of language, likewise said that the scalp wound corresponded to the skull wound:

Finck, who actually was a forensic pathologist and had some experience with gunshot autopsies, would not have said the skull wound corresponded to the scalp wound if they had differed in size or shape.

Finck certainly believes the neck was transited and that the tie was nicked by a bullet that exited the collar. But you never mention that.

Quote
And are you ever going to explain what happened to the low/EOP fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw on the lateral skull x-rays at the autopsy? Under the fiercest and most skeptical questioning by the HSCA and the ARRB, they doggedly insisted that the only fragment trail they saw was the one they described in the autopsy report, even though no such trail now appears on the skull x-rays. Gee, where did it go? WC apologists have only two possible answers: (1) the autopsy doctors were so blitheringly incompetent that they “mistook” the EOP fragment trail for a fragment trail that was actually a whopping 4 inches higher in the lateral skull x-rays, or (2) they simply lied about the fragment trail and ignored the fragment trail now visible on the lateral skull x-rays.

LOL! Do you know what “anatomical position” means? Google it. This only makes your argument more ridiculous.

I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle. I have already showed you the HSCA FPP’s SBT diagram, which leans JFK far forward to make the “slightly upward” trajectory work. But Canning’s SBT trajectory diagram not only ignores this but has JFK sitting straight up and has the back wound above the throat wound and puts the exit point clearly below the throat! We both know you can see these things.[/size]

The forward-leaning drawing merely demonstrated Clyde Snow's concept that the bullet entered the body "upward" in  the anatomic-position sense. It wasn't used by Canning in his trajectory study. Canning started with a normal-position model and adjusted it to relate to the wounding-position seen in Croft and the Z190s.

Quote
But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.

It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/b3/6O2YmfG9_o.png)

Quote
Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.

You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted. The problem, which you have again ducked, is that there is no way in the world that the distance differences would be so tiny if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged. The distances would be far, far greater in every aspect/angle (yaw, pitch, and roll angles).

We are still waiting for some WC apologist to do a reenactment where they use an Imperial Reflex camera, take three photos, and hand the camera back and forth between each exposure, and produce photos that show the same incredibly tiny distances between background objects. I have already quoted the HSCA PEP’s own parallax measurements on those amazingly tiny differences in two other replies.

I already answered this nonsense. Allow me to quote part of what I wrote the last time you posted these arguments:

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that the Backyard cluster is over 200% divergent from the Dallas Arrest cluster in both distance and shape. You keep dancing around this central fact. And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.

So you really think Oswald's features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos.

Quote
And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Oswaldby2.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
One of the control photos. Head detail sharp.
  (http://grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/jfk_picture_search/lee_harvey_oswald/backyard_photo_03.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Backyard Photos. Head detail not as sharp.

In the backyard Photos, the lower chin features lack the definition of the arrest photos, the nasal septum/upper lip juncture appears to be in shade, and where does one figure out where the ear lobes begin? Would you have preferred the HSCA just guessed about that?

Quote
You must be kidding. The "mean distance"?! Do you know how to read a graph? Do you not see the numbers on each line of the graph? Look at the graph again and you should be able to discern these numbers:

Dallas Arrest: 0 shape distance, 0 size distance
Marine: 0.5 shape distance, 0.020/0.025 size distance
New Orleans: 1.6 shape distance, 0.06/0.07 size distance
Russia: 0.9 shape distance, 0.19 size distance
Backyard: 1.75/1.8 shape distance, 0.31/0.32 size distance

Now, the closest of the Oswald clusters to the Backyard cluster is the New Orleans cluster, but even it diverges by 9% in shape distance and by 250% in size distance from the Backyard cluster.

Some features of Oswald in the Backyard Photos are out a whomping 250%. Are the ears twice as large as in other photos? Maybe they're Obama Ears!

Quote
If the backyard figure's face Penrose measurements were reasonably similar to those of the face seen in the Dallas arrest photos, you would not have these huge variations. And the variations would be even greater if the measurements had included those of the chin, nose, and ear lobes.

I imagine they would be since those starting-points are not as clearly defined as the arrest photos.

Quote
Now, to post this cherry-picked nonsense, you either don't grasp the basics about the Penrose analysis or you are hoping that our readers here are so gullible and math challenged that they will ignore the plainly obvious huge divergences seen on the graph and will somehow instead be impressed with your three cherry-picked sets of measurements.

LOL! Right. . . .  Yeah. . . .  And it was just a whopping, cosmic, incredible coincidence that the only three measurements that were omitted from the Penrose analysis were those of the same three areas that critics and photographic experts have identified as problematic: the chin width, the nose length, and the lobe length! I'd be willing to bet good money that even the dumbest Southern "cracker" who looked at the backyard photos would have enough basic intelligence to see that Snow's excuse is laughable.

Do tell me why they could not have gotten these measurements from 133-A-DeM or from 133-A-Stovall or from 133-C. 133-C is an 8 x 10 print. 133-A-Stovall is a 5 x 8 print and has better resolution than 133-A or 133-B. Let's see you stammer out some ridiculous excuse for why the nose, chin, and ear lobes are not clear enough in those photos to get those measurements. You simply must be kidding.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pantagraph.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/fa/0fa761de-cad1-11de-a46f-001cc4c002e0/0fa761de-cad1-11de-a46f-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg)   (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Oswaldby2.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Backyard Photos fall short of level
of detail in the arrest photos.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
No article text readable.

The clearest print I could find. Do you have one better. BTW, you claimed that the newsprint (article text) could be read:

    "133-A-DeM is so high quality that you can read
     the print on the newspaper in the figure's hand."

Quote
And, again, just imagine how much greater the divergence between the Dallas Arrest cluster and the Backyard cluster would have been if those measurements had been included.

You've already given Backyard Oswald a Karl Malden nose, Marty Feldman eyes and Mr. Spock Ears.


Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.

JohnM

 :D
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 12, 2020, 05:53:12 PM
OMG, why the deception? The keystone theory has been thoroughly refuted and when I demonstrated the massive amount of parallax changes in the backyard photos you endorsed my evidence(see below), now you're back to square one and peddling your original BS?

What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here. 

Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.

"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:

The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter


b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm


The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:

Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)

Here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:

133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11


Again, these are millimeters.

Every nutty theory that you have posted that I bothered to read follows a similar pattern of nonsensical conclusions, you are obviously spreading yourself over too many subjects being a Jack of all trades, master of none.

This is goofball posturing. You really should avoid such posturing when you simultaneously show yourself to be comically ignorant of the facts.

On what planet is 1.1 mm, the largest variation in the horizontal parallax measurements, a "massive" change? Are you kidding? Are you some high schooler using your parent's computer in the basement? 1.1 mm, just FYI, is markedly smaller than 1/16th of an inch, and that was the largest horizontal change! Do you know what a millimeter is?

In the vertical parallax measurements, the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). Do you know how tiny a change 0.15 mm is? 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. Do you know basic math well enough to understand just how incredibly tiny that difference is? This might help you out: 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference (0.15 mm/0.0059 inches) that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch.

If you just cannot grasp the basic math here, go ask your parents to explain to you why 0.15 mm is an extremely tiny, tiny, tiny difference.

I hate to be so harsh, but you get on here and spew all this rhetoric while at the same time you make it obvious for all to see that you are clueless about even the basic facts. Maybe on your planet a 1.1 mm horizontal change and a 0.15 mm vertical change are "massive changes," but not down here on Earth.

The only "nutty theory" here is your absurd theory that a top-view handheld camera with a lever instead of a button, and handed back and forth between exposures, could produce photos that contain differences between their background objects that are so tiny that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and that were found to range from only 0.1 mm to 1.1 mm.

Finally, regarding Jerry Organ's labored denial that the rear entry wound in the skull was 6.0 mm, I will just note that even the WC did not stoop to this level of denial and dishonesty. The WC admitted that the skull wound was 6.0 mm, since the autopsy report makes this clear to everyone except a tiny band of WC apologists, and the commission theorized that the skull hole "recoiled" to 6.0 mm after being 6.5 mm or larger when made:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by
the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

And notice that the commission said that this recoil "shrinks" the hole. The past tense of "shrinks" is "shrunk." I mention this because Jerry Organ strongly protested my use of the verb "shrunk" in reference to the alleged recoil of the skull.






 

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 12, 2020, 07:00:34 PM
What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here. 

Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.

"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:

The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter


b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm


The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:

Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)

Here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:

133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11


Again, these are millimeters.

This is goofball posturing. You really should avoid such posturing when you simultaneously show yourself to be comically ignorant of the facts.

On what planet is 1.1 mm, the largest variation in the horizontal parallax measurements, a "massive" change? Are you kidding? Are you some high schooler using your parent's computer in the basement? 1.1 mm, just FYI, is markedly smaller than 1/16th of an inch, and that was the largest horizontal change! Do you know what a millimeter is?

In the vertical parallax measurements, the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). Do you know how tiny a change 0.15 mm is? 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. Do you know basic math well enough to understand just how incredibly tiny that difference is? This might help you out: 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference (0.15 mm/0.0059 inches) that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch.

If you just cannot grasp the basic math here, go ask your parents to explain to you why 0.15 mm is an extremely tiny, tiny, tiny difference.

I hate to be so harsh, but you get on here and spew all this rhetoric while at the same time you make it obvious for all to see that you are clueless about even the basic facts. Maybe on your planet a 1.1 mm horizontal change and a 0.15 mm vertical change are "massive changes," but not down here on Earth.

The only "nutty theory" here is your absurd theory that a top-view handheld camera with a lever instead of a button, and handed back and forth between exposures, could produce photos that contain differences between their background objects that are so tiny that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and that were found to range from only 0.1 mm to 1.1 mm.

(http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg)

You really think the pickets in these three photographs should have spread apart by centimeters between exposes? That the photographer's feet shifted two-or-three feet laterally between poses?

And you don't mention how the changes are consistent with how each photo was taken.
So now we'll be hearing that the "forgers" took all that into account.

Quote
Finally, regarding Jerry Organ's labored denial that the rear entry wound in the skull was 6.0 mm, I will just note that even the WC did not stoop to this level of denial and dishonesty. The WC admitted that the skull wound was 6.0 mm, since the autopsy report makes this clear to everyone except a tiny band of WC apologists, and the commission theorized that the skull hole "recoiled" to 6.0 mm after being 6.5 mm or larger when made:

The Commission was evidently referring to the head when they used the word "skull". Because their own footnote references Humes testimony about the scalp wound measurements.

Quote
"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by
the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

And notice that the commission said that this recoil "shrinks" the hole. The past tense of "shrinks" is "shrunk." I mention this because Jerry Organ strongly protested my use of the verb "shrunk" in reference to the alleged recoil of the skull.

Little Donald Trump won't let nothing go and has to have the largest font size in the room. The difference is that the Commission provided the context of elastic recoil (and for skin if we go by their footnote). Which means a temporary enlargement that settles naturally to a slightly-smaller size. Compare with your scoffing tweet:

    "The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk."
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 12, 2020, 08:53:31 PM
Note the ad-Homs liberally sprinkled on yet another MTG word salad.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 12, 2020, 09:14:06 PM

You really think the pickets in these three photographs should have spread apart by centimeters between exposes? That the photographer's feet shifted two-or-three feet laterally between poses?

Do you just not understand the basic science here? Do you not grasp the problem? Or are you just throwing mud into the air and hoping some of it will seem credible? You and Mytton either simply do not grasp the problem or you are pretending the problem does not exist and making arguments that have nothing to do with the problem.

All the ducking and dodging in the world will not explain how a top-view handheld camera that had a lever instead of a button, and that was supposedly passed back and forth between exposures, could have produced three photos with backgrounds so similar that the differences between the objects in the backgrounds are so small that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and were found to be so incredibly tiny as to range between 0.1 mm and 1.1 mm. You keep dancing around this point.


And you don't mention how the changes are consistent with how each photo was taken.
  • In all cases, more of the background is shown to the right and less to the left on CE 133-B as compared to CE 133-A. Since the shadow analysis indicated that CE 133-B was taken before CE 133-A, the parallax indicates that the camera was moved slightly to the left between these two exposures.

LOL! This is what happens when you quote stuff without understanding the science behind it (or when you are unwilling to address the problem). The whole point is that the camera would have moved far, far, far more than "slightly to the left" if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged.

The parallax measurements show that the camera barely moved to the left at all between those two exposures, so little, so slightly, in fact, that the largest variation was only 1.1 mm in one of the horizontal parallax measurements. Nope, not on this planet.

  • Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures.

More comedy. Again, the point is that the camera should have moved far, far, far more than the parallax measurements indicate it did, assuming, of course, that the photos were taken as alleged.

The camera was moved so slightly downward that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. To grasp how tiny a change this is, consider that 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Not on this planet.

 
Between the first and second pickets from the left gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member, a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the background.

This is your same bumbling, bogus argument, only this time regarding the vertical movement. Yes, the camera was moved downward, and the downward movement was impossibly slight. The camera was moved downward so slightly that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. Not on this planet.

As I have suggested before, why don't you WC apologists pool your money and perform a simple, inexpensive reenactment with the same model Imperial Reflex camera, or with a reasonably similar camera, and prove that someone taking three photos with such a camera and handing it back and forth between exposures could take photos that would contain such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects?


So now we'll be hearing that the "forgers" took all that into account.

LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. What "all that"? All you have done is repeat facts that prove the very point I've been making.

The forgers would not have needed to take "all that" into account because the "all that" was the result of using the same background and only slightly keystoning it to try to make it less obvious that they used the same background! The "all that" simply reinforces the fact that the parallax measurements prove that the camera moved impossibly tiny amounts between exposures. If you have an explanation for these impossibly small variations, let's see it.


The Commission was evidently referring to the head when they used the word "skull". Because their own footnote references Humes testimony about the scalp wound measurements.

Uh, no, the commission said "the skull," not "the scalp." I'm pretty sure they knew the difference. Yes, the footnote references Humes' testimony, in which, at one point, Humes said the same thing:

"So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area." (2 H 352)

What do you not understand about this plain English? Oh, that's right: You still won't admit that in medical terms "corresponding" means "match," "fit," "agree with." When you acknowledge this definition, Humes was plainly saying that when they reflected the scalp, they could see that the wound in the skull matched the wound in the scalp, which was 6 mm wide.

So, "apparently," the author of this section of the report chose to rely on the autopsy report and on Humes's statement quoted above, and not on Humes's attempt to create wiggle room about the size of the wound in the skull. It is revealing that you, instead, choose to ignore the autopsy report and to ignore Humes's 2 H 352 statement, and instead rely solely on his waffling attempt to create wiggle room for the size of the skull wound.


Little Donald Trump won't let nothing go and has to have the largest font size in the room. The difference is that the Commission provided the context of elastic recoil (and for skin if we go by their footnote). Which means a temporary enlargement that settles naturally to a slightly-smaller size. Compare with your scoffing tweet:

    "The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk."

But that is exactly what the WC said--the report even used the verb "shrinks." Shall we read it yet again?:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

So the WC said that when a bullet strikes skull bone, the supposed "elastic recoil" of the skull "SHRINKS" the hole after the bullet goes through it so that the hole is smaller than the diameter of the bullet.

You do realize that "shrunk" is the past tense of "shrink," right?

Why don't you look up the verb "to shrink" while you're looking up the verbs "infer" and "imply," because you seem to have a problem with those verbs too. Or, maybe find some question or statement in the WC records uttered by "Mr. SPECTOR" that supports your twisting of language because you don't like what the language says.
[/list]
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 12, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Do you just not understand the basic science here? Do you not grasp the problem? Or are you just throwing mud into the air and hoping some of it will seem credible? You and Mytton either simply do not grasp the problem or you are pretending the problem does not exist and making arguments that have nothing to do with the problem.

All the ducking and dodging in the world will not explain how a top-view handheld camera that had a lever instead of a button, and that was supposedly passed back and forth between exposures, could have produced three photos with backgrounds so similar that the differences between the objects in the backgrounds are so small that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and were found to be so incredibly tiny as to range between 0.1 mm and 1.1 mm. You keep dancing around this point.

LOL! This is what happens when you quote stuff without understanding the science behind it (or when you are unwilling to address the problem). The whole point is that the camera would have moved far, far, far more than "slightly to the left" if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged.


The parallax measurements show that the camera barely moved to the left at all between those two exposures, so little, so slightly, in fact, that the largest variation was only 1.1 mm in one of the horizontal parallax measurements. Nope, not on this planet.

More comedy. Again, the point is that the camera should have moved far, far, far more than the parallax measurements indicate it did, assuming, of course, that the photos were taken as alleged.

The camera was moved so slightly downward that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. To grasp how tiny a change this is, consider that 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Not on this planet.

This is your same bumbling, bogus argument, only this time regarding the vertical movement. Yes, the camera was moved downward, and the downward movement was impossibly slight. The camera was moved downward so slightly that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. Not on this planet.

You realize the HSCA were not talking about the parallax differences in terms of life-scale?

Quote

As I have suggested before, why don't you WC apologists pool your money and perform a simple, inexpensive reenactment with the same model Imperial Reflex camera, or with a reasonably similar camera, and prove that someone taking three photos with such a camera and handing it back and forth between exposures could take photos that would contain such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects?

     "such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects"

Yep. It appears you don't.

Quote
LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. What "all that"? All you have done is repeat facts that prove the very point I've been making.

The forgers would not have needed to take "all that" into account because the "all that" was the result of using the same background and only slightly keystoning it to try to make it less obvious that they used the same background! The "all that" simply reinforces the fact that the parallax measurements prove that the camera moved impossibly tiny amounts between exposures. If you have an explanation for these impossibly small variations, let's see it.

This gets better. The "forgers" can morph variations in each background so accurately they're undetectable as being fraudulently done years later though expert examination including stereo viewing. In addition, the "forgers" took the "same background" and changed the shadows on each background object in each photograph, such that they too are totally consistent with a genuine photograph.

Quote
Uh, no, the commission said "the skull," not "the scalp." I'm pretty sure they knew the difference. Yes, the footnote references Humes' testimony, in which, at one point, Humes said the same thing:

"So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area." (2 H 352)

What do you not understand about this plain English? Oh, that's right: You still won't admit that in medical terms "corresponding" means "match," "fit," "agree with." When you acknowledge this definition, Humes was plainly saying that when they reflected the scalp, they could see that the wound in the skull matched the wound in the scalp, which was 6 mm wide.

Then why didn't Humes simply say he had measurements for the skull entry wound?

    "The size of the defect in the scalp, caused by a projectile could vary from
     missile to missile because of elastic recoil and so forth of the tissues.
     However, the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this case,
     the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm., so I would feel
     that that would be the absolute upper limit of the size of this missile, sir."

    "This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic
     recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
     this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than the caliber of the
     missile that traversed it."

Quote
So, "apparently," the author of this section of the report chose to rely on the autopsy report and on Humes's statement quoted above, and not on Humes's attempt to create wiggle room about the size of the wound in the skull. It is revealing that you, instead, choose to ignore the autopsy report and to ignore Humes's 2 H 352 statement, and instead rely solely on his waffling attempt to create wiggle room for the size of the skull wound.

But that is exactly what the WC said--the report even used the verb "shrinks." Shall we read it yet again?:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

So the WC said that when a bullet strikes skull bone, the supposed "elastic recoil" of the skull "SHRINKS" the hole after the bullet goes through it so that the hole is smaller than the diameter of the bullet.

You do realize that "shrunk" is the past tense of "shrink," right?

Why don't you look up the verb "to shrink" while you're looking up the verbs "infer" and "imply," because you seem to have a problem with those verbs too. Or, maybe find some question or statement in the WC records uttered by "Mr. SPECTOR" that supports your twisting of language because you don't like what the language says.

Obsessive. Like Trump saying he didn't say "Tim Apple": "I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time & words".
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on August 13, 2020, 12:57:12 AM
What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here. 

Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.

"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:

The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter


b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm


The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:


(https://media.tenor.com/images/e02dc142ecc9238177b15fe257f3d4c9/tenor.gif)

For a start I said there was a massive amount of parallax changes, i.e. the distances between each and every object in the backyard photos show a parallax change hence my usage of "massive amount of parallax changes" and for the record shows that these multiple parallax changes are definitely not a simple keystone adjustment, so STOP saying there was.

Secondly, you're either being really dishonest or absolutely clueless, I asked you before what these millimeter changes are relative to, are we talking about a postage stamp size photo, a newspaper size photo, an actual size from the location photo or a billboard size photo? A close look at the actual HSCA document shows that the size of the post to the lower picket that the HSCA measured was only 6.8mm(0.27 inch), a measurement that you conveniently keep leaving out of your posts because without context the quoted measurements that you mindlessly keep repeating are meaningless.

(https://i.postimg.cc/65GZgXkk/parallax-hsca-backyard.jpg)

The recovered de Mohrenschildt photo appears to be about the size of the photo that correlates to the millimeter measurements used by the HSCA and as we can see the overall width of the photo is less than 5.5 inches which is proportionally many times less than the actual size of the real world location. Doh!

(https://i.postimg.cc/T1BD17DN/de-mohrenschildt-backyard-photo-post-to-picket.jpg)

JohnM


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Mytton on August 13, 2020, 03:13:29 AM
You realize the HSCA were not talking about the parallax differences in terms of life-scale?

     "such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects"

Yep. It appears you don't.


Quote
Yep. It appears you don't.

 :D

JohnM
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
Note the ad-Homs liberally sprinkled on yet another MTG word salad.

Someone who uses the term "CTards" has no business whining about "ad-homs".
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 14, 2020, 05:43:58 AM
Someone who uses the term "CTards" has no business whining about "ad-homs".

3 times on this version of the forum
Last one Sept 2019
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 15, 2020, 02:10:01 AM
Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 15, 2020, 03:33:08 AM
Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.

Go to BBcode site here (https://www.bbcode.org/) which explains the method behind it all. A shorter answer follows.

In a reply window here, click on one of the icons in the icon row above (first icon has a "B" on the top row) when you wish to add links or pictures to your post. The "picture frame" on the far left of the second row (it's below the "B") provides a pop-up window that says "Enter image location" (ie: the link to the site where the picture was posted or to your picture hosting site).

Code: [Select]
[img][/img]
If you want to see all the formatting (sample above), you will have to click the button on the far right (second row) that says "Toggle View" when your mouse hovers over it. The coding view allows you to do extra things like change the size of your picture.

Code: [Select]
[img width=123 height=123][/img]
There's a nifty "Preview" button below your reply window that allows you a chance to check it things are working. After you click "Preview", the page reloads but it'll be focused on your reply window. To see the preview, scroll (using the scroll bar of the browser on the extreme right margin) to up above the reply window.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 15, 2020, 04:39:52 AM
Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.

Go to postimages.org
(You don't have to sign up)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NLhnnvFp/post-images-here.png)
1) Upload your image

(https://i.postimg.cc/MHXcFgNM/choose-direct-link.png)
2) Choose 'Direct Link'

3) Use the 'image' function here

(https://i.postimg.cc/j5wZY3G9/dox2.jpg)
4) Result
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 15, 2020, 07:22:15 PM
Jerry, thanks very much
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 15, 2020, 07:23:47 PM
Bill, thanks very much. I wonder why you can't just copy and in this reply box??
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2020, 05:45:25 AM
Bill, thanks very much. I wonder why you can't just copy and in this reply box??

Not sure what you mean
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 16, 2020, 04:26:03 PM
Thanks again
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2020, 07:32:49 PM
I meant why I can't just paste a picture into this posting.

The Forum limits uploaded photos to a generic or custom icon per member. That way all the Forum needs to back-up and pay for storage are text and a very small amount of pictures. Pictures (larger than icons) have really large file sizes. Most Forums do it this way, I believe.

Photos for posts must be to an image link that is nested inside these tags:

Code: [Select]
[img][/img]
I believe the browser (not the Forum's software) reads the link and automatically loads the image in.

You can use use direct coding ("Toggle View") or click on the "Picture Frame" icon. It's up to the poster to maintain a library of images at a picture-hosting site (maybe OneDrive links work, but I don't know).

You can also "hot-link" an image you see already posted on another site, by right-clicking the image and choosing "Copy image location" (do not press "Copy image" as that is for copying all the image information and data for pasting into a digital photo editor program). Some sites discourage "hot-linking" and your image link from such sources might not display correctly on the Forum.

Images on the Forum have been known to disappear over time as the image-hosting site may go to a paying format or go out of business. An "hot-linked" image can disappear if the page it's linked to is removed or its address is changed.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2020, 07:43:15 PM
I meant why I can't just paste a picture into this posting.

All this stuff is available online.
Google the following:
"why can't I just paste an image into my posting on forums"
(If you include the quotation marks I may have to kill you)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2020, 07:45:05 PM
The Forum limits uploaded photos to a generic or custom icon per member. That way all the Forum needs to back-up and pay for storage are text and a very small amount of pictures. Pictures (larger than icons) have really large file sizes. Most Forums do it this way, I believe.

Photos for posts must be to an image link that is nested inside these tags:

Code: [Select]
[img][/img]
I believe the browser (not the Forum's software) reads the link and automatically loads the image in.

You can use use direct coding ("Toggle View") or click on the "Picture Frame" icon. It's up to the poster to maintain a library of images at a picture-hosting site (maybe OneDrive links work, but I don't know).

You can also "hot-link" an image you see already posted on another site, by right-clicking the image and choosing "Copy image location" (do not press "Copy image" as that is for copying all the image information and data for pasting into a digital photo editor program). Some sites discourage "hot-linking" and your image link from such sources might not display correctly on the Forum.

Images on the Forum have been known to disappear over time as the image-hosting site may go to a paying format or go out of business. An "hot-linked" image can disappear if the page it's linked to is removed or its address is changed.

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

 ;D
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 16, 2020, 07:54:47 PM
Bill, thanks very much, I'm learning.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2020, 08:14:20 PM
Bill, thanks very much, I'm learning.

Never stop
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 16, 2020, 08:48:50 PM
Since this thread is called “JFK’s Head Snap and the implausible jet effect…… I thought I would focus on that.

Dr Luis Alvarez, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1968, did an experiment with a watermelon. Please go to this site http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect.html and look at the pictures of the watermelon when hit by a frangible round. I know, a head is not a watermelon but they are similar, hard on the outside and soft on the inside. Click on the pictures to enlarge for better viewing. So what happened to the watermelon, the front of it exploded similar to JFK and it was thrown backwards in the direction of where the shot originated.

Now remember in the motion picture “JFK”, Kevin Costner kept repeating when explaining JFK’s head movement “back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left”.

Now if you consider Dr. Luis Alvarez's melon experiment the movement of the watermelon went directly back towards where the shot came from. So By following JFK’s head movement you can tell in which direction the shot came from, “back and to the left”. And who was back and to the left with gun that fires a frangible round, Hickey.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 17, 2020, 05:39:24 AM
Since this thread is called “JFK’s Head Snap and the implausible jet effect…… I thought I would focus on that.

Dr Luis Alvarez, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1968, did an experiment with a watermelon. Please go to this site http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect.html and look at the pictures of the watermelon when hit by a frangible round. I know, a head is not a watermelon but they are similar, hard on the outside and soft on the inside. Click on the pictures to enlarge for better viewing. So what happened to the watermelon, the front of it exploded similar to JFK and it was thrown backwards in the direction of where the shot originated.

Now remember in the motion picture “JFK”, Kevin Costner kept repeating when explaining JFK’s head movement “back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left”.

Now if you consider Dr. Luis Alvarez's melon experiment the movement of the watermelon went directly back towards where the shot came from. So By following JFK’s head movement you can tell in which direction the shot came from, “back and to the left”. And who was back and to the left with gun that fires a frangible round, Hickey.

The Magic Loogie

Back, and to the left
Back, and to the left
Back... and to the left

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 17, 2020, 08:46:21 AM
Bill, physics is physics, can't argue that.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 17, 2020, 03:02:53 PM
Bill, physics is physics, can't argue that.

A sense of humour is a sense of humour.
Not everybody has one.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 17, 2020, 08:14:24 PM
Yes a sense of humor is wonderful and that was one of my favorite skits from the Seinfeld show.
Let me know what you think about my theory, it's kinda all quiet on the western front.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2020, 10:51:01 PM
Since this thread is called “JFK’s Head Snap and the implausible jet effect…… I thought I would focus on that.

Dr Luis Alvarez, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1968, did an experiment with a watermelon. Please go to this site http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect.html and look at the pictures of the watermelon when hit by a frangible round. I know, a head is not a watermelon but they are similar, hard on the outside and soft on the inside. Click on the pictures to enlarge for better viewing. So what happened to the watermelon, the front of it exploded similar to JFK and it was thrown backwards in the direction of where the shot originated.

Now remember in the motion picture “JFK”, Kevin Costner kept repeating when explaining JFK’s head movement “back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left”.

Now if you consider Dr. Luis Alvarez's melon experiment the movement of the watermelon went directly back towards where the shot came from. So By following JFK’s head movement you can tell in which direction the shot came from, “back and to the left”. And who was back and to the left with gun that fires a frangible round, Hickey.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/72/e4/mfOtYcR4_o.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Gelatin block tests published in the House Select Committee's
final report. Compare relatively narrow wound channel of
full-metal jacket 6.5mm Carcano round in block A to photo
of .223 round test (illus. 26 above)."

Howard Donahue published the HSCA exhibit above in the photo section of "Mortal Error", caption shown.

The .223 test referred to is captioned:

    "Using a mirror, House Select Committee gelatin block test showing explosive
     disintegration of AR-15 .223 (M-16) round from two angles. this test, although
     virtually replicating massive damage done to Kennedy's skull, was omitted
     from the committee's final report. No. 113 on the adjacent list of exhibits from
     committee's ballistics hearing, Sept. 8, 1978, identifies it as AR-15, .223 (M-16)."

That exhibit does show extensive grain-like fragmentation along its path. By contrast, Donahue (and McLaren, as well) apparently believe a Carcano round will just leave a relatively straight un-fragmented trail through the human skull ("Block A").

Can you find where Donahue and McLaren actually realized that "Block A" was all soft tissue, with no skull bone simulation? Has either one fired a Carcano round into a human skull or appropriate replication?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 18, 2020, 03:24:49 AM
I didn’t see the “illus 26 above” in your posting, but I have seen the .223 round go through the gelatin block and similar things happen. I don’t know what sets off the explosive action but I do know it travels for some distance and then explodes.
It’s not so much that it is a “carcano” round, it’s that it is a metal jacked bullet designed to go through more than one soldier on the battle field. One time my brother and I were out shooting and we had an old army masser WWII vintage, not sure where it was from but it had metal jacked bullets in it. I fired at some sort of animal feed bin and the bullet went through the first 2X6 wood piece and when it went through the second wood rail, it went through it sideways, they were about 5 feet apart. So in the first piece of wood there was just a round hole in it and in the second one you could see the side profile of the bullet. No evidence of it coming apart.
I will look in McLarens book and see if there is a moment where McLaren or Donohue realize that they don’t have an acceptable representative experiment, no hard shell.
I haven’t seen anything about the 6.5 going through a skull but McLaren did do the watermelon test with both types of bullets. The frangible round, .223 acted exactly as in Dr Alvarez’s experiment, small entry hole and an explosion in the exit area.  The 6.5 had a small entry hole and the exit hole was a little larger with some outward cracks around it. It was in “JFK – The Smoking Gun” documentary. Again a watermelon is not a human skull but it does give us a very good idea of what is happening.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 18, 2020, 04:07:55 AM
I didn’t see the “illus 26 above” in your posting, but I have seen the .223 round go through the gelatin block and similar things happen. I don’t know what sets off the explosive action but I do know it travels for some distance and then explodes.
It’s not so much that it is a “carcano” round, it’s that it is a metal jacked bullet designed to go through more than one soldier on the battle field. One time my brother and I were out shooting and we had an old army masser WWII vintage, not sure where it was from but it had metal jacked bullets in it. I fired at some sort of animal feed bin and the bullet went through the first 2X6 wood piece and when it went through the second wood rail, it went through it sideways, they were about 5 feet apart. So in the first piece of wood there was just a round hole in it and in the second one you could see the side profile of the bullet. No evidence of it coming apart.
I will look in McLarens book and see if there is a moment where McLaren or Donohue realize that they don’t have an acceptable representative experiment, no hard shell.
I haven’t seen anything about the 6.5 going through a skull but McLaren did do the watermelon test with both types of bullets. The frangible round, .223 acted exactly as in Dr Alvarez’s experiment, small entry hole and an explosion in the exit area.  The 6.5 had a small entry hole and the exit hole was a little larger with some outward cracks around it. It was in “JFK – The Smoking Gun” documentary. Again a watermelon is not a human skull but it does give us a very good idea of what is happening.

FMJ ammo was designed to pass through-and-through a body, not necessarily to score a twofer but for humanitarian reasons.

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2020, 05:59:20 PM
I didn’t see the “illus 26 above” in your posting,

Couldn't find it online and I don't have a scanner. Maybe you could post it.

Quote
but I have seen the .223 round go through the gelatin block and similar things happen. I don’t know what sets off the explosive action but I do know it travels for some distance and then explodes.
It’s not so much that it is a “carcano” round, it’s that it is a metal jacked bullet designed to go through more than one soldier on the battle field. One time my brother and I were out shooting and we had an old army masser WWII vintage, not sure where it was from but it had metal jacked bullets in it. I fired at some sort of animal feed bin and the bullet went through the first 2X6 wood piece and when it went through the second wood rail, it went through it sideways, they were about 5 feet apart. So in the first piece of wood there was just a round hole in it and in the second one you could see the side profile of the bullet. No evidence of it coming apart.
I will look in McLarens book and see if there is a moment where McLaren or Donohue realize that they don’t have an acceptable representative experiment, no hard shell.
I haven’t seen anything about the 6.5 going through a skull but McLaren did do the watermelon test with both types of bullets. The frangible round, .223 acted exactly as in Dr Alvarez’s experiment, small entry hole and an explosion in the exit area.  The 6.5 had a small entry hole and the exit hole was a little larger with some outward cracks around it. It was in “JFK – The Smoking Gun” documentary. Again a watermelon is not a human skull but it does give us a very good idea of what is happening.

Tests using softwood and watermelons are soft tissue tests.

What happened to Connally was neither a strict soft tissue event nor a hard tissue event. The theory goes that the Carcano bullet exited the President's throat, tumbled somewhat by time it struck Connally, then slid along the rather thin fifth rib (ribs can be broken in fistfights) easily breaking it.

The radius bone injury was not a nose-on full-velocity strike but a "slap"-type injury; the bullet struck the wrist but didn't gouge out a hole through the bone, as a direct strike by a pristine bullet would have. X-rays show fractures to the radius with all bone present. To repair, a metal pin or bone grafts weren't necessary.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 18, 2020, 09:45:17 PM
 Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.
Jerry, I will look for the “illus 26”.
Yes they can be considered “soft tissue” tests but because of the similarity of a watermelon to a human head you see similar results. The bullet travels about half way through the object and explodes. The bullet has it’s own momentum and was moving at 3,000 ft/sec so it keeps traveling until it explodes.
I haven’t studied the Connelly wounding but because he was hit by a “tumbling” bullet it had to have hit something previously to upset it. Because of this the single bullet theory makes sense. Several people have lined the bullets path by showing Connelly sitting in a lower jump seat and seated a little to the left of JFK.
Once you figure in a shot from the grassy knoll, whether the “single bullet theory” is correct or not, you have established two shooters. The big question is who paid them or told them to do it.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 18, 2020, 10:05:09 PM
Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.

I know that. But the original decree was the humanitarian thing. However, you'd think the idea of possible twofers factored into the decision.
Mind you, Quigley scored a triple-header.

But don't use FMJ ammo for home D. You might not stop some big hulk lunging at you, and wind up winging the mother-in-law to boot.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2020, 10:38:27 PM
Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.
Jerry, I will look for the “illus 26”.
Yes they can be considered “soft tissue” tests but because of the similarity of a watermelon to a human head you see similar results. The bullet travels about half way through the object and explodes. The bullet has it’s own momentum and was moving at 3,000 ft/sec so it keeps traveling until it explodes.

Melons can simulate the encased mass of a soft tissue object like the brain (the temporary cavity effect will burst the shell). But the rind at the entry point does not have the hardness to cause the FMJ to fragment as does skull bone or an appropriate replication.

Quote
I haven’t studied the Connelly wounding but because he was hit by a “tumbling” bullet it had to have hit something previously to upset it. Because of this the single bullet theory makes sense. Several people have lined the bullets path by showing Connelly sitting in a lower jump seat and seated a little to the left of JFK.
Once you figure in a shot from the grassy knoll, whether the “single bullet theory” is correct or not, you have established two shooters. The big question is who paid them or told them to do it.

I would think a frangible bullet impacting something as hard as skull bone would disintegrate immediately and at the entry point. It would be very unlike the soft tissue gelatin test in "illus. 26".

Don't tell me Donahue and McLaren didn't do any hard tissue tests with AR-15 rounds as well as not testing 6.5mm FMJs on hard tissue? McLaren strikes me as a bit of a showman, anyway.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 19, 2020, 03:55:59 PM
I mentioned earlier that both Humes and Boswell told the ARRB that they did not remember doing a review of the autopsy materials in 1967, i.e., the review where they allegedly markedly changed their position on the orientation of autopsy photo F8. Well, come to find out that Humes, when presented with a copy of the 1967 memorandum, told the ARRB that he did not know who wrote it!:

“I don't know who wrote this, and reading it, it doesn't seem like I wrote it, just because of the phraseology and some of the comments. I don't know who wrote it.” (ARRB interview transcript, 2/13/96, p. 197)

As you will recall, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed a posterior view of the head. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture. The fact that F8 is a posterior-view photo is extremely important because this means that F8 shows a sizable amount of bone missing from the occiput.

I only recently became aware that the ARRB’s forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, identified compelling evidence that F8 shows a posterior view of the skull. Dr. Kirschner noted that he saw fat tissue in a corner of the photo. A few years earlier, Dr. Mantik viewed F8 in stereo and noted that the upper left corner of F8 shows fat tissue and even a nipple extending outward from the skin of the chest. As Dr. Mantik explains, this fatty tissue would only be visible if F8 showed a posterior view of the head:


Quote
A compelling visual clue unexpectedly confronted me at the Archives as I viewed the color transparencies in stereo. In the upper left corner of F8 . . . I was surprised to see fat tissue (in the far distance), and even a nipple extending outward from the skin of the chest. (This area is not visible in the public images.) Rather strangely, until the ARRB, no one else had reported seeing such fatty tissue. However, the ARRB’s forensic pathologist, Robert H. Kirschner, also described this fat. Kirschner had thus corroborated my critical observation. These fat pads probably resulted from retracting the abdominal skin after the Y-incision. (Kirschner made the same point.) Seeing such fatty tissue in that location is only possible if F8 is a view from the back of the head. Once that is granted, a large occipital defect can readily be appreciated in F8. (Mantik, John F. Kennedy’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis, Kindle Edition, 2015, location 418, p. 31)

On a side note, Humes told the ARRB that F8 showed the EOP entry wound, and Dr. Mantik has confirmed that F8 does show an EOP entry wound almost exactly where Humes placed it (Mantik, John F. Kennedy’s Head Wounds, locations 385-392, 574-579, pp. 25-29, 62-65).

Dr. Mantik makes a powerful case from F8 and from the skull x-rays that the autopsy report’s placement of the rear head entry wound (slightly above the EOP) is correct. He acknowledges that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report (EOP to right eye) is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, but he shows that the photographic evidence of an EOP entry wound is strong, and that the skull x-rays suggest an EOP entry site.

The fact that the extant x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and the fact that the autopsy doctors said nothing about the top-of-head fragment trail, is a vexing problem for those who argue that the autopsy skull x-rays are genuine/unaltered.

WC apologists are left with only two very distasteful explanations for this problem, since they refuse to allow for alteration: One, the autopsy doctors were so unbelievably incompetent that they mistook the top-of-head fragment trail seen on the extant x-rays for a fragment trail that started at the EOP and went to a point just above the right eye. Two, the autopsy doctors purposely ignored the top-of-head fragment trail and knowingly described a low fragment trail that did not exist.

 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 21, 2020, 04:19:20 PM
Jerry, I agree a melon rind would not cause a FMJ bullet to fragment nor a frangible round and I am not sure a FMJ round would break apart hitting a skull. The purpose of the watermelon test is to see the difference in the results between a FMJ and a frangible round. Aren’t the results of the frangible round on the watermelon and what happened to JFK similar?

A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.

I don’t know if Donahue and McLaren did any “hard tissues tests” nor do I know that they are done. Please read this interesting article on ballistic gel, it basically includes “hard tissue”. https://shootingthebull.net/blog/more-on-bullet-penetration-and-why-we-dont-use-bones-when-testing-ammo-in-gel/
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 21, 2020, 06:00:42 PM
Jerry, I agree a melon rind would not cause a FMJ bullet to fragment nor a frangible round and I am not sure a FMJ round would break apart hitting a skull. The purpose of the watermelon test is to see the difference in the results between a FMJ and a frangible round. Aren’t the results of the frangible round on the watermelon and what happened to JFK similar?

Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.

A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.

Quote
A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.

I don’t know if Donahue and McLaren did any “hard tissues tests” nor do I know that they are done. Please read this interesting article on ballistic gel, it basically includes “hard tissue”. https://shootingthebull.net/blog/more-on-bullet-penetration-and-why-we-dont-use-bones-when-testing-ammo-in-gel/

So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.

The website talks about ballistic gel being a soft tissue simulant (true) but they're talking about straight-line bullet penetration range, not fragmentation or what happens when a bullet deflects.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 21, 2020, 07:46:09 PM
Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.

A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.

Oh, yeah, your story is that CE 399 supposedly transited JFK's neck, then transited Connally's chest while smashing 4 inches of rib bone in the process, then transited Connally's wrist and smashed one of the hardest bones in the body in the process, and then buried itself in Connally's thigh--yet not only did this magic bullet not fragment but it emerged with its lands and grooves intact. However, your story also says that the one head-shot bullet that you will acknowledge shattered into dozens of fragments, depositing two fragments in the limo and leaving about 40 fragments in the head! Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Quote
Quote from: Mike Carney on Today at 04:19:20 PM
A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.

So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.

You should know by now that this is false. We have already covered this issue. You are once again misrepresenting the totality of Humes's statements on the wound, and are ignoring what Finck said about the wound. As has been pointed out to you, even the WC did not stoop to the level of denying that the wound was measured to be 6.0 mm on the scalp and on the skull. That's what Humes said in the autopsy report. That's what he told the WC in one part of this testimony. And that's what Finck stated very clearly to General Blumberg.  I am sorry that you don't like the fact that in medical lingo "corresponding" means matching, fitting, etc.

You pull this stunt over and over again. You make a claim; the claim is refuted; and then you post the claim again and do not even acknowledge the counter-arguments that have been presented to you about the claim. I guess you just assume that most people will only read the most recent posts in a thread or something and that therefore you can usually get away with repeating refuted claims and with not even acknowledging the counter-arguments to those claims.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 21, 2020, 08:33:36 PM
Jerry,

“Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.”

If you think about it if a frangible round fragmented on impact and didn’t penetrate the skull all you would have is a flesh wound. No, with the speed and the mass of the frangible round, it will penetrate bone. If I could remember my college physics I could better explain it but the old brain doesn’t work like it used to.
“A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.”

As far as McLaren being misleading, think of the gelatin test. They specify that a bullet must penetrate the gel 12” (not body penetration, but gel penetration) this means that the bullet has enough energy to hit the vitals from any angle, and through any barrier on the body.  It will have enough power to blast through a bone and reach the vitals underneath.  I don’t think the Armed Forces would use a bullet that would not pass muster in a gelatin ballistics test.

“So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.”

Yes, I think the 6mm applies to the skull and not the tissue. The tissue is too pliable and one would have to use a ruler to measure a hole in tissue but for a hole In the skull they would use something like an inside taper gauge.

“The website talks about ballistic gel being a soft tissue simulant (true) but they're talking about straight-line bullet penetration range, not fragmentation or what happens when a bullet deflects.”

No, the ballistic gel is both hard and soft tissue equivalent. . See it all depends on how far the bullet penetrates the gel. If it penetrates the gel 12” then that is the equivalent of going through any amount of bone and soft tissue to get to vital organs.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 21, 2020, 08:58:27 PM
Oh, yeah, your story is that CE 399 supposedly transited JFK's neck, then transited Connally's chest while smashing 4 inches of rib bone in the process, then transited Connally's wrist and smashed one of the hardest bones in the body in the process, and then buried itself in Connally's thigh--yet not only did this magic bullet not fragment but it emerged with its lands and grooves intact.

I don't know if I would use such ornate terms as "smashed" when the rib is a fairly thin bone easily broken in fistfights and X-rays show Connally's wrist bone did not receive a bullet that went through the bone, leaving behind a hole. Seems to be more like gliding-along and slapping off side-way injuries. The thigh injury was very superficial, the bullet wasn't found "buried" there.

Quote
However, your story also says that the one head-shot bullet that you will acknowledge shattered into dozens of fragments, depositing two fragments in the limo and leaving about 40 fragments in the head! Yeah, makes perfect sense.[/size]

Did the SBT bullet initially encounter a skull bone? No. So the two shots have differing properties.

Quote
You should know by now that this is false. We have already covered this issue. You are once again misrepresenting the totality of Humes's statements on the wound, and are ignoring what Finck said about the wound. As has been pointed out to you, even the WC did not stoop to the level of denying that the wound was measured to be 6.0 mm on the scalp and on the skull. That's what Humes said in the autopsy report. That's what he told the WC in one part of this testimony. And that's what Finck stated very clearly to General Blumberg.  I am sorry that you don't like the fact that in medical lingo "corresponding" means matching, fitting, etc.

The way you twist words and meaning. Spike Jones will never die.

Quote
You pull this stunt over and over again. You make a claim; the claim is refuted; and then you post the claim again and do not even acknowledge the counter-arguments that have been presented to you about the claim. I guess you just assume that most people will only read the most recent posts in a thread or something and that therefore you can usually get away with repeating refuted claims and with not even acknowledging the counter-arguments to those claims.[/size]

LOL! You're paranoid and on the verge of cracking up.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 21, 2020, 09:07:33 PM
Jerry,

“Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.”

If you think about it if a frangible round fragmented on impact and didn’t penetrate the skull all you would have is a flesh wound. No, with the speed and the mass of the frangible round, it will penetrate bone. If I could remember my college physics I could better explain it but the old brain doesn’t work like it used to.

I didn't claim it won't crack the skull, or bore through it. I'm assuming it would penetrate the skull bone, but, being frangible, it would leave behind at the impact site a considerable amount of its mass.

Quote
“A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.”

As far as McLaren being misleading, think of the gelatin test. They specify that a bullet must penetrate the gel 12” (not body penetration, but gel penetration) this means that the bullet has enough energy to hit the vitals from any angle, and through any barrier on the body.  It will have enough power to blast through a bone and reach the vitals underneath.  I don’t think the Armed Forces would use a bullet that would not pass muster in a gelatin ballistics test.

But whatever passed through Kennedy brain didn't arrive there nose-on and intact.

Quote
“So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.”

Yes, I think the 6mm applies to the skull and not the tissue. The tissue is too pliable and one would have to use a ruler to measure a hole in tissue but for a hole In the skull they would use something like an inside taper gauge.

“The website talks about ballistic gel being a soft tissue simulant (true) but they're talking about straight-line bullet penetration range, not fragmentation or what happens when a bullet deflects.”

No, the ballistic gel is both hard and soft tissue equivalent. . See it all depends on how far the bullet penetrates the gel. If it penetrates the gel 12” then that is the equivalent of going through any amount of bone and soft tissue to get to vital organs.

Great test, I suppose, if the working assumption is that a FMJ bullet will be intact and nose-on after passing through a bone. McLaren would love it; the AR-15 bullet would disintegrate anyway and the FMJ bullet would plow a straight path.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 22, 2020, 09:37:38 PM
Jerry

“I didn't claim it won't crack the skull, or bore through it. I'm assuming it would penetrate the skull bone, but, being frangible, it would leave behind at the impact site a considerable amount of its mass.”

What do we know about the hole, it appears to be a clean hole so the bullet did pass through the skull without any “explosion” at entry. So then the bullet travels some distance and explodes, how far we don’t know. We also know that the right of JFK’s head is blown out, shown in Zapruders film. 

“But whatever passed through Kennedy brain didn't arrive there nose-on and intact.”

No, it exploded as frangible rounds do, we just don’t know where it explodes. Moving at 3,000 ft/sec it could have traveled some distance. Of course it would have been slowed down by the impact but none the less, it was still traveling very fast.

“Great test, I suppose, if the working assumption is that a FMJ bullet will be intact and nose-on after passing through a bone. McLaren would love it; the AR-15 bullet would disintegrate anyway and the FMJ bullet would plow a straight path.”

Again, we know it will designate or explode at some point but we don’t know where.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 22, 2020, 10:03:00 PM
You don’t need to be a PhD in physics to know that with every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Forward movement, what happens when you get hit in the back of the head with something, your immediate reaction is your head moves forward, nothing magical about that. Now let’s talk about the rearward movement

It seems that the only possible explanation for the head jerking backward is the “jet-effect” or the “neuromuscular spasm” caused by the 6.5mm bullet shot from a Carcano rifle 80 yards away, moving at 1800 ft/sec.

Now let’s imagine a 5.5mm bullet shot from an M16 roughly 15 ft away traveling at 3,000 ft/sec.

Now let’s talk about the backward jolt. Imagine a small explosive device, more powerful than a cherry bomb but not as powerful as a hand grenade, next to a person’s right forehead. Now imagine it is detonated, what happens, the head jerks away from the exploded device. No argument there I take it. Now imagine I can put that device inside the head say a couple inches away from the left forehead. Now that is detonated and what happens. It blows the forehead open and spews blood and brain matter out and the power of the explosion again pushes the head away from the explosion in a backward direction.

So my theory is that the frangible bullet reaches the area in JFK’s forehead and explodes, thus the backward movement.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 23, 2020, 12:04:48 AM
Jerry

“I didn't claim it won't crack the skull, or bore through it. I'm assuming it would penetrate the skull bone, but, being frangible, it would leave behind at the impact site a considerable amount of its mass.”

What do we know about the hole, it appears to be a clean hole so the bullet did pass through the skull without any “explosion” at entry. So then the bullet travels some distance and explodes, how far we don’t know. We also know that the right of JFK’s head is blown out, shown in Zapruders film. 

I can see a FMJ making it through the skull and leaving behind a clean hole. "Mortal Error" reported that Donahue knew the 6.5mm bullet "would have fractured mechanically, that is broken up as a result of the physical impact with the skull." We don't know the exact mechanism involved, but there is some speculation that the 6.5mm bullet, hot from being fired, would have encountered significant friction during its passage through the bone and fractured along its middle length. That portion of the lead core could liquify and send "cast-off" fragments throughout the brain. When the skull exploded (from the temporary cavity and impact on the inside of the skull) some metal fragments could end up in the scalp itself.

"Mortal Error" includes a very similar description of "cast-off" fragmentation with regard to the .233 round:

    "The missile's tumbling motion, combined with its enormous centrifugal
     velocity, then shredded the already ruptured jacket and flung the now-
     molten lead core outward in a circular pattern near the front of the brain."

The Haags fired a few 6.5mm rounds into asphalt and discovered the bullets disintegrated into minute bits.

    "In this case, a bullet traveling approximately 2100 f/s (1,432 miles per hour)
     comes to a complete stop in about 1 inch of travel in asphalt. A rough
     calculation of the decelerating forces acting on this bullet, expressed as
     gravities (g), yields a value of 1.6 million g. The relatively soft copper jacket
     disintegrates into minute fragments and the very soft lead core essentially
     vaporizes."

Quote
“But whatever passed through Kennedy brain didn't arrive there nose-on and intact.”

No, it exploded as frangible rounds do, we just don’t know where it explodes.

"Illus. 16" shows the .223 round traveled without disintegration through a distance much greater than the brain before breaking up.

Quote
Moving at 3,000 ft/sec it could have traveled some distance. Of course it would have been slowed down by the impact but none the less, it was still traveling very fast.

“Great test, I suppose, if the working assumption is that a FMJ bullet will be intact and nose-on after passing through a bone. McLaren would love it; the AR-15 bullet would disintegrate anyway and the FMJ bullet would plow a straight path.”

Again, we know it will designate or explode at some point but we don’t know where.

There is an Australian study on-line that may or may not relate to the AR-15. It's called "Wound Ballistic Simulation of a Headshot with .223 Rem" link (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00450618.2019.1569140). It refers to a head wound in the temporal bone. FWIW, here it is:

The Abstract:

    "In the context of a crime scene, it became necessary to examine
     whether a direct shot to the head with calibre .223 Rem. could
     happen without creating an exit wound. A simplified head model
     consisting of a bone-sphere filled with gelatine was compared with
     a more realistic model considering the inner bone structure of the
     human skull. It turned out that both models show significantly
     different behaviour. While the bullet normally penetrates the
     simplified model and causes an exit defect, it was found that bullet
     fragmentation can happen in the more realistic model due to grazing
     along inner bones. The fragments might not perforate the skin and
     remain inside the skull without creating an exit defect."

Some excerpts:

    "Experience from previous examinations is that a .223 Rem. bullet
     fired into a 15 cm block of gelatine penetrates it, creates a large
     temporary cavity and leaves an exit wound with a diameter multiple
     times the bullet’s diameter. When shooting at a simplistic head model,
     such as the one described above, this behaviour is confirmed: the
     bullet enters through the Synbone®, passes through the gelatine
     without fragmentation and exits through the Synbone® on the
     opposite side."

    "All bullets shot into the simplistic models hit the surrounding bone
     head-on and penetrated without fragmentation, leaving an exit wound
     that was afterwards widened by the temporary cavity that the bullet
     caused. The surrounding bone-sphere was heavily fragmented. This was
     observed both with skin substitute attached to the bone and without.

The .233 round went through a "simplistic head model" and did not suffer metal fragmentation.

    "The five shots using the setting shown in Figure 1 [a more realistic skull
     model] hit a flat Synbone® immediately after they left the muzzle in a
     grazing manner with an angle comparable to the angle a self-inflicted
     shot might graze along the temporal bone (see Figure 1). This setting
     causes the bullet to yaw so it hits the block of gelatine with an enlarged
     surface rather than with the top ahead (as in the case of the simplistic model).
     The force acting on the enlarged surface causes the bullet to fragment
     when it enters the block of gelatine and also subsequently.

        Out of the five shots using the setting shown in Figure 1, one fragmented
     in such a way that the biggest fragment created an exit wound on the
     opposite side. Two shots could not be analysed because the trajectory
     moved away from the camera position. The remaining two shots did not
     show any exit wound because the specific energy of the heaviest fragment
     (the steel tip of the bullet) was not high enough to perforate the skin simulant."

     "If the bullet grazes a substantial bone it starts to yaw and it fragments.
    The specific energy of the fragments is much lower than it is for the bullet
    as a whole and might not be enough to perforate the bone and the skin at
    the opposite side of the skull. The induced pressure still causes the skull to
    burst but may not cause the skin to tear. Thus, the fragments remain inside
    the head. The skull will show multiple fractures but its pieces could still be
    held together by the enveloping skin. In this case there will be no exit wound."
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 23, 2020, 03:03:28 AM
You don’t need to be a PhD in physics to know that with every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Forward movement, what happens when you get hit in the back of the head with something, your immediate reaction is your head moves forward, nothing magical about that. Now let’s talk about the rearward movement

It seems that the only possible explanation for the head jerking backward is the “jet-effect” or the “neuromuscular spasm” caused by the 6.5mm bullet shot from a Carcano rifle 80 yards away, moving at 1800 ft/sec.

Now let’s imagine a 5.5mm bullet shot from an M16 roughly 15 ft away traveling at 3,000 ft/sec.

Now let’s talk about the backward jolt. Imagine a small explosive device, more powerful than a cherry bomb but not as powerful as a hand grenade, next to a person’s right forehead. Now imagine it is detonated, what happens, the head jerks away from the exploded device. No argument there I take it. Now imagine I can put that device inside the head say a couple inches away from the left forehead. Now that is detonated and what happens. It blows the forehead open and spews blood and brain matter out and the power of the explosion again pushes the head away from the explosion in a backward direction.

So my theory is that the frangible bullet reaches the area in JFK’s forehead and explodes, thus the backward movement.

In McLaren's melon tests, he acknowledges his test for the FMJ duplicates what happens when such a bullet will "go straight through the body of the soldier, giving him a chance to go to the hospital and eventually go home." In other words, a soft tissue test.

McLaren then uses a ".223 frangible hollow-point round. And being a frangible round, it is designed to explode on impact. And the result is devastating."

Did Hickey's AR-15 have hollow-point frangible rounds?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 23, 2020, 03:52:38 PM
Jerry,

You have produced some very interesting information and proving that a frangible round could enter the back of the head and make it through the brain and then explode yielding results that we see in the Zapruder film. Whether the bullet was on its way to explode traveling through the brain or whether the bullet hit the interior of the skull at JFK’s forehead area causing the explosion, we don’t know.

Was it a hollow point bullet that Hickey fired, most likely. Just thinking about it if it wasn’t, it would be nothing more than an overpowered .22 and I don’t think the military would back something like that for combat. How would that replace the M14??

Another possibility but highly unlikely is that the bullet from the grassy knoll and the bullet from Hickey’s AR15 hit each other and exploded. Either way, both scenarios’ explain JFK’s backward head movement.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 23, 2020, 04:16:41 PM
Jerry you will notice when McLaren does the watermelon tests the FMJ goes though the melon and the exit hole is a little larger than the entry hole plus there is some fracturing on exit. The frangible round enters the melon leaving a small entry hole, travels some distance and explodes taking the whole front end of the melon apart. We see this time and again as in Alvarez’s experiment.

In defense of Dr Alvarez:

To explain a little about Dr Alvarez, I don’t know this to be a fact but coming from an engineering background I see it as this. Regarding the multiple different results of shooting various “fruits” and seeing the results and increasing the velocity of the bullets and finally getting the same results as we see happened to JFK.  He kept trying and trying until something worked. It wasn’t that he was hiding the results of the failed attempts; in R&D we do a lot of that kind of thing, keep at it until you get it right. And as far as Vela Incident, the US and Israeli governments can cover up anything and in the process shred someone’s reputation. I know there are no facts to back this up, it’s just the way I see it from what I know and have experienced.

What I am trying to demonstrate as was Dr Alvarez is that a frangible round traveling at 3,000 ft/sec entering the back of JFK’s head gets ¾ of the way through his head and explodes. I don’t think Alvarez was hiding anything, I think he was just trying to demonstrate the effect. I have seen many other videos of others do the same experiment with the same results.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 23, 2020, 04:43:11 PM
Jerry you will notice when McLaren does the watermelon tests the FMJ goes though the melon and the exit hole is a little larger than the entry hole plus there is some fracturing on exit. The frangible round enters the melon leaving a small entry hole, travels some distance and explodes taking the whole front end of the melon apart. We see this time and again as in Alvarez’s experiment.

In defense of Dr Alvarez:

To explain a little about Dr Alvarez, I don’t know this to be a fact but coming from an engineering background I see it as this. Regarding the multiple different results of shooting various “fruits” and seeing the results and increasing the velocity of the bullets and finally getting the same results as we see happened to JFK.  He kept trying and trying until something worked. It wasn’t that he was hiding the results of the failed attempts; in R&D we do a lot of that kind of thing, keep at it until you get it right. And as far as Vela Incident, the US and Israeli governments can cover up anything and in the process shred someone’s reputation. I know there are no facts to back this up, it’s just the way I see it from what I know and have experienced.

What I am trying to demonstrate as was Dr Alvarez is that a frangible round traveling at 3,000 ft/sec entering the back of JFK’s head gets ¾ of the way through his head and explodes. I don’t think Alvarez was hiding anything, I think he was just trying to demonstrate the effect. I have seen many other videos of others do the same experiment with the same results.

Just for fun

The Day of the Jackal

Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 23, 2020, 07:27:18 PM
The WC apologists here clearly do not understand, or are pretending not to understand, why the two bullet fragments in the back of JFK’s head destroy the lone-gunman theory. Why do they destroy the theory? Because there is no way, no way on this planet at least, that those fragments came from an FMJ bullet. Perhaps a review is in order.

* The two fragments are nowhere near the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report, and they are in different layers of the head. In the autopsy skull x-rays, the 2-3 mm fragment inside the ghosted 6.5 mm object is in the outer table of the skull, but the other fragment, the one discovered by HSCA consultant Dr. G. M. McDonnel in 1978, is between the galea and the outer table and is slightly to the left of the 2-3 mm fragment (the galea is the membrane between the scalp and the skull).

* The two fragments are at least 1 cm below the Clark Panel-HSCA cowlick entry site. The proposed cowlick entry site is a whopping 4 inches higher than the EOP entry site. Subsequent research has found that there is no cowlick entry site, and that the EOP entry site is confirmed by autopsy photo F8 and is indicated/implied by the skull x-rays.

* The HSCA's forensic pathology panel offered the implausible theory that the two fragments sheared off the alleged FMJ bullet as it entered the skull. Since the alleged FMJ bullet supposedly struck the skull at a substantially downward angle, any fragments shearing off the bullet would have been deposited above the entry site, not 1 cm below it. Plus, as mentioned, the proposed cowlick entry site has been discredited. So there was no entry site that could have scraped off two fragments from an entering bullet. 

* Lone-gunman theorists have yet to find a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet striking skull bone had fragments sheared from it and where those sheared fragments deposited themselves in different layers of the head and on the wrong side of the entry wound (or 3 inches from the nearest entry wound).

* The only credible, plausible explanation for the two fragments is that they are ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher suggested to firearms expert Howard Donahue, and just as Donahue brilliantly developed through later research. Five eyewitnesses said they saw a bullet strike the curb near the limousine early in the shooting (Don Thomas, Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, 2013, pp. 314-317). This bullet sent several fragments streaking toward the limousine, with at least two of them hitting JFK in the back of the head. They would have hit hard enough to hurt, to sting.

It is entirely plausible, if not probable, that JFK’s first visible reactions, starting in Z186, were in response to the impact of these fragments. This would explain a number of things and would strongly suggest that JFK’s very visible Z226-232 reaction was in response to the bullet that struck him in the back. Most conspiracy theorists now agree with Fisher and Donahue that the two back-of-head fragments must be ricochet fragments.

WC apologists cannot accept the compelling conclusion that the two fragments are ricochet fragments because, for one thing, this would mean that Oswald, the alleged lone gunman, incomprehensibly fired at JFK while his view of him was blocked by the oak tree on Elm Street.

* Although the autopsy doctors’ EOP entry site has been vindicated, a major problem with this site remains: the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no fragment trail leading from/to the EOP entry site, even though the autopsy report says there was such a trail, and even though the autopsy doctors all insisted that they saw the trail on the x-rays during the autopsy.

The only fragment trail now appearing on the extant skull x-rays is 4 inches higher, almost at the very top of the skull. The autopsy report says nothing about this fragment trail, and the autopsy doctors never mentioned it in their testimony. What happened to the low fragment trail? Why is it nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? Why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the high fragment trail?

There are three possibilities: one, the x-rays have been altered; two, the autopsy doctors ignored the high fragment trail (because it suggested a frontal shot), and they lied about seeing a low fragment trail; and three, the autopsy doctors, along with the radiologist, committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail as being 4 inches lower and as starting at the EOP entry site.

* The EOP entry site poses an unsolvable problem for the lone-gunman theory: There is no way that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the TSBD could have made this wound and the alleged exit wound on the right-front side of the head unless JFK had been leaning forward by about 60 degrees. But the Zapruder film shows him leaning forward by only about 11 degrees.

A bullet from the sixth-floor window would have struck Kennedy’s head at a downward angle of about 16 degrees. As Donahue realized, if one assumes that the bullet struck just above the EOP and that it was fired from the sixth-floor window,


Quote
then the bullet struck Kennedy on a downward, 16-degree angle, banked up like a pool ball, and made a quick right turn to exit the skull near the right front—at a higher level than where it went in. (Bonar Menninger, Mortal Error, 1992, p. 47; see also pp. 43-46)

* On the lateral skull x-rays, the high fragment trail begins with a cluster of fragments in the frontal region and gradually dissipates as it moves leftward across the skull, which clearly indicates a shot from the front. A basic principle of wound ballistics is that when a bullet strikes the skull, if it leaves any fragments, it will leave the most fragments near the point of entry and will leave smaller and smaller amounts of fragments as it moves farther away from the entry point.

Someone may have realized this and therefore ensured that the high fragment trail was not mentioned in the autopsy report and that the autopsy doctors never mentioned it in their testimony. This is one possible explanation. There are other possible explanations, all of them problematic for the lone-gunman theory.


 
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 23, 2020, 08:25:54 PM
Jerry you will notice when McLaren does the watermelon tests the FMJ goes though the melon and the exit hole is a little larger than the entry hole plus there is some fracturing on exit. The frangible round enters the melon leaving a small entry hole, travels some distance and explodes taking the whole front end of the melon apart. We see this time and again as in Alvarez’s experiment.

Anything to do with a melon is a soft-tissue test. Now Dr. Alvarez termed his wrapped melon (two layers of one-inch Scotch filament tape) a "reasonable facsimile of a human head" but Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, critiqued Alvarez's study and claimed:

    "the force required for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same
     thickness of live human bone vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100
     times greater, and 50 times greater even for dead human bone."

Hard to imagine a .223 round impacting something 100 times harder than a melon rind and still perform as if it were in a gelatin block or melon.

With regards to the McLaren melon tests, the 6.5mm in soft-tissue has a uniform and steady temporarily cavity and wouldn't begin to tumble, if at all, until well pass the length of the melon. A tumbling or disintegrated FMJ round (as from impacting skull bone) would have a different temporary cavity.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/docu/coldcasejfk/terminal/gelatin-test-04.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
6.5mm "Carcano" gelatin test for Cold Case JFK

The .223 round tumbles almost immediately and maybe separates early, producing a greater temporary cavity in a shorter space. The Australian .223 study makes me wonder if the .223 round would have sufficient force to "explode" a wrapped melon. In any event, we're still taking about soft-tissue events which has limited relevance to a skull wound.

So the .223 round has a "tumbling" advantage over FMJs in soft-tissue. But in regards to a skull wound, the FMJ would likely tumble and disintegrate as well, depending on how it struck the skull bone.

Quote
In defense of Dr Alvarez:

To explain a little about Dr Alvarez, I don’t know this to be a fact but coming from an engineering background I see it as this. Regarding the multiple different results of shooting various “fruits” and seeing the results and increasing the velocity of the bullets and finally getting the same results as we see happened to JFK.  He kept trying and trying until something worked. It wasn’t that he was hiding the results of the failed attempts; in R&D we do a lot of that kind of thing, keep at it until you get it right. And as far as Vela Incident, the US and Israeli governments can cover up anything and in the process shred someone’s reputation. I know there are no facts to back this up, it’s just the way I see it from what I know and have experienced.

The Alvarez tests had explosive results using soft-nosed 30.06 bullets striking melons but apparently only if the melons were wrapped (two layers of strong one-inch Scotch filament tape). Alvarez doesn't much say what happened to the melons that weren't wrapped. Dr. Lattimer, in 1975, repeated the Alvarez wrapped-melon test using 6.5mm FMJs, claiming to have produced similar recoil results.

So we're back to melons tests by Alvarez/Lattimer and McLaren being soft-tissue, possibly having some application in showing the effects of a temporary cavity in a soft tissue mass, like the brain. But to get to that soft-tissue in a living human first requires impact and penetration on skull bone, which in turn induces the factor of bullet tumbling and, mostly likely, disintegration at the entry site.

Quote
What I am trying to demonstrate as was Dr Alvarez is that a frangible round traveling at 3,000 ft/sec entering the back of JFK’s head gets ¾ of the way through his head and explodes. I don’t think Alvarez was hiding anything, I think he was just trying to demonstrate the effect. I have seen many other videos of others do the same experiment with the same results.

Unfortunate the Alvarez and McLaren results fall into the soft-tissue test category.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 23, 2020, 09:47:13 PM
Anything to do with a melon is a soft-tissue test. Now Dr. Alvarez termed his wrapped melon (two layers of one-inch Scotch filament tape) a "reasonable facsimile of a human head" but Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, critiqued Alvarez's study and claimed:

    "the force required for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same
     thickness of live human bone vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100
     times greater, and 50 times greater even for dead human bone."

Hard to imagine a .223 round impacting something 100 times harder than a melon rind and still perform as if it were in a gelatin block or melon.

With regards to the McLaren melon tests, the 6.5mm in soft-tissue has a uniform and steady temporarily cavity and wouldn't begin to tumble, if at all, until well pass the length of the melon. A tumbling or disintegrated FMJ round (as from impacting skull bone) would have a different temporary cavity.

The .223 round tumbles almost immediately and maybe separates early, producing a greater temporary cavity in a shorter space. The Australian .223 study makes me wonder if the .223 round would have sufficient force to "explode" a wrapped melon. In any event, we're still taking about soft-tissue events which has limited relevance to a skull wound.

So the .223 round has a "tumbling" advantage over FMJs in soft-tissue. But in regards to a skull wound, the FMJ would likely tumble and disintegrate as well, depending on how it struck the skull bone.

The Alvarez tests had explosive results using soft-nosed 30.06 bullets striking melons but apparently only if the melons were wrapped (two layers of strong one-inch Scotch filament tape). Alvarez doesn't much say what happened to the melons that weren't wrapped. Dr. Lattimer, in 1975, repeated the Alvarez wrapped-melon test using 6.5mm FMJs, claiming to have produced similar recoil results.

So we're back to melons tests by Alvarez/Lattimer and McLaren being soft-tissue, possibly having some application in showing the effects of a temporary cavity in a soft tissue mass, like the brain. But to get to that soft-tissue in a living human first requires impact and penetration on skull bone, which in turn induces the factor of bullet tumbling and, mostly likely, disintegration at the entry site.

Unfortunate the Alvarez and McLaren results fall into the soft-tissue test category.

You've made several incorrect statements here, but I will just make a couple of quick poiints.

Not one of the bullets in the Failure Analysis tests fragmented. In the Failure Analysis tests, FMJ bullets were fired into human skulls--not one of them fragmented.

In the WC's wound ballistics tests, none of the FMJ bullets fired into skulls broke into numerous fragments. They either did not fragment or broke into only a few fragments. Bullets were fired into 10 skulls, and fewer than 30 fragments were produced. So even if we assume that every single bullet fragmented, this would still mean that fragmentation was minimal and nothing like the bullet that you guys claim hit the back of JFK's skull.

As I explain in my previous reply, the autopsy doctors' rear head entry site--the EOP site--has been validated, but that site rules out the sixth-floor sniper's nest as the source of the shot because the vertical trajectory from the wound is impossible to line up with the sixth-floor window unless you assume that JFK was leaning about 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

Finally, regarding NOVA's flimsy Cold Case: JFK documentary, you might want to read Dr. Gary Aguilar's critique of it:

NOVA’s Cold Case: JFK -- The Junk Science Behind PBS’s Recent Foray into the Crime of the Century
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 23, 2020, 10:01:36 PM

* The only credible, plausible explanation for the two fragments is that they are ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher suggested to firearms expert Howard Donahue, and just as Donahue brilliantly developed through later research. Five eyewitnesses said they saw a bullet strike the curb near the limousine early in the shooting (Don Thomas, Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, 2013, pp. 314-317). This bullet sent several fragments streaking toward the limousine, with at least two of them hitting JFK in the back of the head. They would have hit hard enough to hurt, to sting.

Tests by the Haags showed 6.5mm FMJs fired into asphalt almost instantly disintegrated into minute parts, which seems to put the "ricochet" theory to rest.

Quote

It is entirely plausible, if not probable, that JFK’s first visible reactions, starting in Z186, were in response to the impact of these fragments. This would explain a number of things and would strongly suggest that JFK’s very visible Z226-232 reaction was in response to the bullet that struck him in the back. Most conspiracy theorists now agree with Fisher and Donahue that the two back-of-head fragments must be ricochet fragments.

JFK doesn't react to being shot until Z226. He may have been shot a few frames before (while out of view) but didn't voluntary react until Z226.

Quote
* The EOP entry site poses an unsolvable problem for the lone-gunman theory: There is no way that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the TSBD could have made this wound and the alleged exit wound on the right-front side of the head unless JFK had been leaning forward by about 60 degrees. But the Zapruder film shows him leaning forward by only about 11 degrees.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-headshotslope.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Modified from HSCA drawing
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 24, 2020, 12:36:21 AM
  "the force required for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same
     thickness of live human bone vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100
     times greater, and 50 times greater even for dead human bone."

I am not arguing that the melon rind is as hard as a person’s skull. The watermelon test is to demonstrate what the different effects of the two kinds of bullets has on a head. The FMJ basically passes right through with not a lot of collateral damage and no fragmenting. The frangible round on the other hand does a tremendous amount of damage. The frangible round passes into the melon and at some point explodes forcing the innards of the melon forward and the rear section backwards. Just like JFK reacted.

“With regards to the McLaren melon tests, the 6.5mm in soft-tissue has a uniform and steady temporarily cavity and wouldn't begin to tumble, if at all, until well pass the length of the melon. A tumbling or disintegrated FMJ round (as from impacting skull bone) would have a different temporary cavity.”

A FMJ round does not disintegrate, the jacket holds it together.

“So we're back to melons tests by Alvarez/Lattimer and McLaren being soft-tissue, possibly having some application in showing the effects of a temporary cavity in a soft tissue mass, like the brain. But to get to that soft-tissue in a living human first requires impact and penetration on skull bone, which in turn induces the factor of bullet tumbling and, mostly likely, disintegration at the entry site.”

M16 rounds do not “disintegrate” on impact, please see the data below.

Please see the M16 penetration characteristics shown at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

Ballistic gelatin @ 10 meters - 14 in, sandbags @ 100 meters - 4 in, ¾” pine boards @ 100 meters - 8 boards, steel helmet - both sides at 300 m, one side to 500 m, 14 ga steel @ 100 meters - 2 layers, Kevlar - 31 layers

And it won’t penetrate ¼” of bone? I think 3.6 gr bullet traveling at 3,300 ft/sec will easily penetrate ¼” of bone. What was the gun of choice for mob hits, .22 cal. Now if a .22 hollow point will pass through the skull with a velocity of 1,100 ft/sec, a .223 at 3,300 ft/sec will certainly pass through it.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 24, 2020, 01:26:56 AM
  "the force required for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same
     thickness of live human bone vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100
     times greater, and 50 times greater even for dead human bone."

I am not arguing that the melon rind is as hard as a person’s skull. The watermelon test is to demonstrate what the different effects of the two kinds of bullets has on a head.

You seem to want it both ways. Not saying a melon rind is equal to a human skull, then saying a melon test shows the effects of a shot to the skull.

Quote
The FMJ basically passes right through with not a lot of collateral damage and no fragmenting.

That's typical of how it behaves in a straight-forward soft-tissue event, with no interference from hard-tissue. Striking hard bone (such as in the head shot case) is different.

Quote
The frangible round on the other hand does a tremendous amount of damage. The frangible round passes into the melon and at some point explodes forcing the innards of the melon forward and the rear section backwards. Just like JFK reacted.

We don't know for sure how a .223 round will behave if it must first pass through the skull bone. The melon tests do not have such a skull replication. The Australian test suggests that a .233 round striking the head might have sufficient force to fracture the skull but not enough force to erupt the bone fragments through the scalp.

     "If the bullet grazes a substantial bone it starts to yaw and it fragments.
    The specific energy of the fragments is much lower than it is for the bullet
    as a whole and might not be enough to perforate the bone and the skin at
    the opposite side of the skull. The induced pressure still causes the skull to
    burst but may not cause the skin to tear."

Quote
“With regards to the McLaren melon tests, the 6.5mm in soft-tissue has a uniform and steady temporarily cavity and wouldn't begin to tumble, if at all, until well pass the length of the melon. A tumbling or disintegrated FMJ round (as from impacting skull bone) would have a different temporary cavity.”

A FMJ round does not disintegrate, the jacket holds it together.

Typically held together in soft tissue, as it was designed to. But something different can happen when it directly strikes hard tissue.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/headwound/lattimer-1995-head-wound-test.jpg)

Quote
“So we're back to melons tests by Alvarez/Lattimer and McLaren being soft-tissue, possibly having some application in showing the effects of a temporary cavity in a soft tissue mass, like the brain. But to get to that soft-tissue in a living human first requires impact and penetration on skull bone, which in turn induces the factor of bullet tumbling and, mostly likely, disintegration at the entry site.”

M16 rounds do not “disintegrate” on impact, please see the data below.

Please see the M16 penetration characteristics shown at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

Ballistic gelatin @ 10 meters   14 in
Sandbags @ 100 meters      4 in
¾” pine boards @ 100 meters   8 boards
Steel helmet                 both sides at 300 m, one side to 500 m
14 ga steel @ 100 meters           2 layers
Kevlar                    31 layers

And it won’t penetrate ¼” of bone?

According to that, the gelatin (soft tissue) is the only one where the bullet fragmented into smaller pieces and the sandbags was the only one that showed "complete disintegration". The other results seem similar to the Australian study:

    "When shooting at a simplistic head model, such as the one described above,
     this behaviour is confirmed: the bullet enters through the Synbone®, passes
     through the gelatine without fragmentation and exits through the Synbone®
     on the opposite side."

Quote
I think 3.6 gr bullet traveling at 3,300 ft/sec will easily penetrate ¼” of bone. What was the gun of choice for mob hits, .22 cal. Now if a .22 hollow point will pass through the skull with a velocity of 1,100 ft/sec, a .223 at 3,300 ft/sec will certainly pass through it.

Have you seen the Charles L. Bronson 8mm film?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 24, 2020, 09:15:37 PM
Tests by the Haags showed 6.5mm FMJs fired into asphalt almost instantly disintegrated into minute parts, which seems to put the "ricochet" theory to rest.

LOL! Well, that clinches it then!

One, the Haags are quacks when it comes to the JFK case. Q. U. A. C. K. S.  I’m guessing you haven’t read any of the critiques of their junk science?

Two, the ammo that hit Kennedy in the head behaved like frangible ammo, not FMJ ammo. A frangible bullet striking the curb could have sent fragments streaking at high speeds in several directions.

Three, I am still waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence that says an FMJ bullet striking a skull at a downward angle would somehow deposit two mid-section fragments 1 cm below the entry point. None of the bullets in the WC’s tests did that. None of the bullets in the Failure Analysis tests did that. And no one has yet been able to find a single documented case where an FMJ bullet behaved in this manner.


JFK doesn't react to being shot until Z226. He may have been shot a few frames before (while out of view) but didn't voluntary react until Z226.

Eee-gads! What about all of JFK’s obvious, visible reactions that begin nearly 30 frames earlier, reactions that even the HSCA acknowledged?

* The HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) said Kennedy was hit between Z188 and Z190. The panel noted that a fraction of a second later, at around Z200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze and his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion. The PEP also noted that JFK's head rapidly moves from the right toward Jackie.
* By Z202-204, Jackie has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at her husband (obviously her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that he had begun at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was behind the freeway sign).
* At Z207, Howard Brennan suddenly looks to his right.
* At the direction of the Secret Service, Special Agent John Howlett analyzed films of the shooting (mainly the Zapruder film) with the aid of a surveyor a few days after the assassination. He concluded that Kennedy was first hit at around Z199.
* At around Z200, JFK's hand not only stops suddenly in the middle of a wave, but it also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays at that level until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207.
* William Hartmann, a member of the Committee's photographic evidence panel, reported that the panel found that Willis slide 5 indicated a shot was fired at or shortly before Z190. Willis said he snapped the photo in a startle reaction to the sound of a shot. He took Slide 5 at Z202. "So," notes Hartmann, "that is very nice, consistent evidence that something happened, say, at 190 or shortly before 190." (2 HSCA 15)
* Kennedy's cheek are seen to puff at Z188.

Does your copy of the Zapruder film just not show all of these reactions? Or do you claim that you cannot see them?


(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-headshotslope.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Modified from HSCA drawing

Is this supposed to be your answer to the EOP-entry-site trajectory problem? Did you notice that this diagram is based on the cowlick entry site? Did you miss that?

For starters, you might want to begin your long-overdue homework by reading Howard Donahue’s demolition of Canning’s head-shot trajectory analysis (Mortal Error, pp. 243-246). Donahue (through his writer Bonar Menninger) pointed out that Canning made several fundamental errors in his analysis.


By the way, after Canning finished his work with the HSCA, he wrote the committee's chief counsel, Robert Blakey, a letter in which he said that he was surprised that this study of the photographic evidence revealed "major discrepancies" in the Warren Commission's findings:

Quote
When I was asked to participate in analysis of the physical evidence regarding the assassination of John Kennedy, I welcomed the opportunity to help set the record straight. I did not anticipate that study of the photographic record of itself would reveal major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings. Such has turned out to be the case. (Letter from Thomas Canning to Robert Blakey, 1/5/1978, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/canning-s-letter-to-blakey)


Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 25, 2020, 02:04:45 AM

LOL! Well, that clinches it then!

One, the Haags are quacks when it comes to the JFK case. Q. U. A. C. K. S.  I’m guessing you haven’t read any of the critiques of their junk science?

The Haags are quacks? You mean the writers who criticize their works are quacks. If the Haags are ‘quacks’, why do judges allow them to testify in murder trails as expert ballistic experts? How many of these ‘critics’ have been allowed to give testimony as experts on ballistics in a court of law?

I challenge you to name them.

And no, a medical doctor, giving testimony as a medical expert, does not count as a ballistic expert giving testimony as a ballistic expert.


Two, the ammo that hit Kennedy in the head behaved like frangible ammo, not FMJ ammo. A frangible bullet striking the curb could have sent fragments streaking at high speeds in several directions.

False. WCC/MC will fragment when striking bone at velocities of around 1900 feet per second. They won’t fragment or deform at speeds below 1400 feet per second, even upon striking bone. But they will at the velocity they struck the skull of the President.


Three, I am still waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence that says an FMJ bullet striking a skull at a downward angle would somehow deposit two mid-section fragments 1 cm below the entry point. None of the bullets in the WC’s tests did that. None of the bullets in the Failure Analysis tests did that. And no one has yet been able to find a single documented case where an FMJ bullet behaved in this manner. [/size]

Were any of these experiments conducted with living heads? Couldn’t blood flow move fragments within a head? I am no ballistic expert, but I remember Larry Sturdivan mentioning something along this line in his book “The JFK Myths”.

And would blood flow be even necessary? With the bullet travelling downward, I don’t see how it is that surprising if any fragments ended up 1 cm below the entry point. Surely the bullet, or it’s fragments would likely be passing through that area.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 25, 2020, 03:12:04 AM
All this back and forth crap is getting old. Check out this website where cops talk about .223 headshots.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5445-223-in-the-head

Basically it says that the .223 enters the head and rarely exits. Typically enters the head and travels a couple inches and explodes. Just like what happened to JFK, traveled a couple of inches and exploded.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 25, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
First doctor to work on JFK, the importance of this short video is the location of the head wound
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 25, 2020, 03:07:50 PM
All this back and forth crap is getting old. Check out this website where cops talk about .223 headshots.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5445-223-in-the-head

Basically it says that the .223 enters the head and rarely exits. Typically enters the head and travels a couple inches and explodes. Just like what happened to JFK, traveled a couple of inches and exploded.

You have made a very good case that the head-shot bullet behaved like a frangible bullet and not anything like an FMJ bullet. Many forensic and ballistics experts have noted this fact, as I document in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wound."

But, I can tell you that the likes of Organ and Elliott will never, ever, ever admit this fact, no matter how much evidence you show them and no matter how strained and silly their counter-arguments are exposed as being.

An interesting side note is that we now know that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors briefly discussed the fact that the bullet that struck the head did not behave like an FMJ bullet. This observation probably came from Finck, who had considerable experience with gunshot wounds.

And, you probably know from reading Mortal Error that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel members believed that the back-of-head fragment was a ricochet fragment. I spoke and corresponded with Donahue a couple of times a few years after his book came out, and I could tell right away that he would never lie about something like this. Everyone who knew Donahue could discern that he was a down-to-earth, straight-shooter type of person.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 25, 2020, 05:36:04 PM
You have made a very good case that the head-shot bullet behaved like a frangible bullet and not anything like an FMJ bullet. Many forensic and ballistics experts have noted this fact, as I document in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wound."

But, I can tell you that the likes of Organ and Elliott will never, ever, ever admit this fact, no matter how much evidence you show them and no matter how strained and silly their counter-arguments are exposed as being.

An interesting side note is that we now know that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors briefly discussed the fact that the bullet that struck the head did not behave like an FMJ bullet. This observation probably came from Finck, who had considerable experience with gunshot wounds.

And, you probably know from reading Mortal Error that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel members believed that the back-of-head fragment was a ricochet fragment. I spoke and corresponded with Donahue a couple of times a few years after his book came out, and I could tell right away that he would never lie about something like this. Everyone who knew Donahue could discern that he was a down-to-earth, straight-shooter type of person.


You mean where Dr. Fisher told Donahue the skull entry wound was 6.5 millimeters and that it was in the so-called "cowlick" area?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 25, 2020, 08:31:29 PM

You have made a very good case that the head-shot bullet behaved like a frangible bullet and not anything like an FMJ bullet. Many forensic and ballistics experts have noted this fact, as I document in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wound."

An interesting side note is that we now know that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors briefly discussed the fact that the bullet that struck the head did not behave like an FMJ bullet. This observation probably came from Finck, who had considerable experience with gunshot wounds.

WCC/MC FMJ bullets, upon striking bone at near 1900 feet per second, will fragment.

In a sense, FMJ bullets, which strike bone at high speed, will act like non FMJ bullets, which strike soft tissue at high speed. Both will fragment. So, yes, a FMJ can act like a non FMJ bullet, when a FMJ strikes bone at high speed.

Question:

Where is the ballistic expert who says different? And who cites his experiments that show that a WCC/MC bullet, striking bone, like a skull, at high speed, will not fragment?



But, I can tell you that the likes of Organ and Elliott will never, ever, ever admit this fact, no matter how much evidence you show them and no matter how strained and silly their counter-arguments are exposed as being.

Speaking for myself, no I will never admit this “fact” until you provide quality evidence from a true qualified ballistic expert.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 25, 2020, 09:14:14 PM
Joe

"Question:

Where is the ballistic expert who says different? And who cites his experiments that show that a WCC/MC bullet, striking bone, like a skull, at high speed, will not fragment?"

Read Griffith’s article, it’s full of experts claiming that a FMJ bullet is not likely to fragment and certainly not fragment like the fragments found in JFK’s head.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 25, 2020, 10:04:47 PM

Joe

"Question:

Where is the ballistic expert who says different? And who cites his experiments that show that a WCC/MC bullet, striking bone, like a skull, at high speed, will not fragment?"

Read Griffith’s article, it’s full of experts claiming that a FMJ bullet is not likely to fragment and certainly not fragment like the fragments found in JFK’s head.

I’ve seen his articles. He does not give the name of a true ballistic expert. Someone who:

•   Conducts systematic experiments with bones embedded in ballistic gel to see the effects of bone on bullets under varying conditions, with different types of bullets.
•   Is trusted to give testimony in a court of law, to match bullets recovered to weapons fired, and on other ballistic questions.

He lists true experts, like doctors. But not ballistic experts. A medical doctor should not say things like “I don’t see how CE-399 could have come out with so little damage.” Not any kind of expert will do, like a medical doctor or a rocket scientist, or a good rifleman who is also a gunsmith. It has to be a true ballistic expert to have an opinion that counts. And, after 56 years, the CTers are still searching for such an expert, but found none. So, they resort to palming off the opinions of medical doctors. On medical questions, yes, their opinion carries weight. But on what a bullet should look like, it doesn’t.

Can you point me to such an article by Mr. Griffith and provide the name of a true ballistic expert who he cites?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 25, 2020, 10:11:33 PM
The problem with the argument is you can't explain the fragmentation in JFK's head with a FMJ bullet, only explanation is a frangible round.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 25, 2020, 11:31:43 PM
Sorry Joe,

I thought I included it. http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/forensic.htm
There are a number of experts in the article.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 25, 2020, 11:48:32 PM

Sorry Joe,

I thought I included it. http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/forensic.htm
There are a number of experts in the article.

Yes. I assume they are true ballistic experts. But they aren’t discussing the Western Cartridge Company Mannlicher Carcano bullets. I never claimed every type of bullet that has even been made will fragment when striking a skull at 1900 feet per second. Only that WCC/MC bullets will. Because that is what real world tests show.

Basically, we have non-ballistic experts, like medical doctors, who claim that WCC/MC bullets would not behave this way. And we have true ballistic experts who claim that many types of bullets, do not behave this way. But we don’t have any true ballistic experts who claim a WCC/MC would not behave this way. Either as the WCC/MC bullet that wounded Kennedy and Connally. Or the WCC/MC bullet that struck Kennedy in the head and a fragment of which slightly wounded Tague. After 56 years, the CTers are still searching without any success.

To keep from repeating myself, see my response at:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2690.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2690.0.html)
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 26, 2020, 04:12:27 AM
No they are not discussing the Western Cartridge Company rounds specifically, they are discussing FMJ bullets in which I am sure some were WCC cartridges. There are specifications for a 6.5mm FMJ and I am sure they would all perform similarly. And the other point is the fragmentation; even if a FMJ came apart you would not have the “spray” of tiny fragments, you would have large fragments.

What point are you trying to prove, that Oswald was the lone gunman? That has gone by the wayside.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 26, 2020, 04:47:24 AM

No they are not discussing the Western Cartridge Company rounds specifically, they are discussing FMJ bullets in which I am sure some were WCC cartridges. There are specifications for a 6.5mm FMJ and I am sure they would all perform similarly. And the other point is the fragmentation; even if a FMJ came apart you would not have the “spray” of tiny fragments, you would have large fragments.

“No they are not discussing the Western Cartridge Company rounds specifically, . . .”. End of ballgame.

Not all FMJ bullets are identical or have identical characteristics. They have different compounds that go into making the jacket. Copper, copper alloys, even steel. The thickness of the jacket varies. Different types of FMJ bullets will behave differently. All FMJ bullets will fragment if they strike bone with enough velocity. For many, but not all types of FMJ, this will never happen in the real world, because these velocities are greater than the muzzle velocity of the rifle that fires them. But this is not true of the WCC/MC bullet.

So, it doesn’t matter what some or even many FMJ bullets do when they strike a skull at 1900 feet per second. All that matters is what a WCC/MC bullet will do. And it will fragment.

If WCC/MC bullets could not behave the way it did when it wounded Kennedy and Connally, or could not behave the way when it struck Kennedy in the head, CTers would have no problem finding bonafide ballistic experts who would say so.

How would one predict, ahead of time, if WCC/MC bullets were used to shoot Kennedy and Connally, how CTers would argue otherwise? It’s easy. They would either:

•   Use experts, but non-ballistic experts, to argue that WCC/MC bullets could not do this.
Or:
•   Use real ballistic experts who argue that bullets different from the WCC/MC bullets could not behave as the bullets did at Dealey Plaza, such as fragmenting.

This is something that one could predict ahead of time. And this is precisely the scheme that Mr. Griffith has used.


Let me make an analogy. The early 1960’s Chevrolet Corvair was a dangerous car to operate. Now I’m certain one could find experts who would state that American made cars are generally safe to operate. While this may be true, that doesn’t mean it was true of the Chevrolet Corvair. Using these statements about American cars in general to “prove” that the Chevrolet Corvair was safe would be a logical fallacy.


What point are you trying to prove, that Oswald was the lone gunman? That has gone by the wayside.

What is my point? To point out that Mr. Griffith trying to give the impression that the true ballistic experts agree with him. They don’t. They are either the wrong type of experts talking about WCC/MC bullets, or the right type of experts talking about non WCC/MC bullets.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 26, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
So if the WCC/MC regularly fragments, what size are the fragments, surely you have specs on that. And how do they compare to size of the fragments found in JFK’s skull? Not the one or two pieces found in the back of his head or taped to an x-ray but the massive of “fragment spray” found on the interior of the right side of his skull.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 26, 2020, 12:50:12 PM
“No they are not discussing the Western Cartridge Company rounds specifically, . . .”. End of ballgame.

I hate to be blunt, but that is just an idiotic argument. It shows you have no clue what you're talking about. You are just making up nonsense on the fly.

FYI, even today, most FMJ bullets are copper-jacketed. As I told you in my thread on the evidence that JFK's head was hit by frangible ammo, just go to any major website that sells ammo, and you'll see that most FMJ bullets are copper-jacketed.

And let me remind you again, since you keep ignoring this point, that not one of the WCC/MC FMJ bullets fired into skulls in Olivier's WC ballistics tests fragmented into dozens of fragments inside and/or outside the skull, much less magically deposited two fragments on the outer table of the skull. Not a single one of them did this. Not one.

Let me also remind you that you claim that WCC/MC FMJ bullet CE 399 penetrated seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone, and yet not only did not fragment but, incredibly, emerged with its lands and grooves intact and with all but 3-4 grains of its substance.

I know you don't know anything about ammo or ballistics, but the fact that CE 399's lands and grooves are intact is incredible. This suggests it was fired into cloth, or some other soft material, and then retrieved.

No FMJ bullet down here on Earth is going to smash 4 inches of rib and shatter a radius bone and still have its lands and grooves intact. But that's your fairy tale. Yet, then you turn around and claim that, "Oh, yeah, a WCC/MC FMJ bullet hit Kennedy in the head, shattered into over 40 fragments, left two fragments on the outer table of the skull, and even ejected its nose and tail into the limousine!"

Even on something as well established as the fact that FMJ ammo usually does not fragment in skull shots and that on those few occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment in skull shots, they only break into a few pieces and never into dozens of tiny fragments--even on this well-established fact you can't bring yourself to be objective and just acknowledge the fact.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 26, 2020, 07:07:22 PM
So I think I will sum up my stand and then move onto a new topic like “Who shot JFK and why?”

There were several shooters, 6th floor of the TSBD, the grassy knoll, accidental shot from Hickey, possibly from the Dal Tex building, and possibly another from a sewer.  The sewer I don’t buy it but it’s out there.

The first shot hit’s the pavement and ricocheted fragments hit JFK in the back of the head and he says “I’m hit”. Next shot from behind hit’s JFK in the back and exits his throat and possibly hits Connolly in the back and out his chest, through his wrist and into his leg. Or Connolly got hit by a third bullet possibly from the Dal Tex building. His movements after JFK got hit, and his testimony states he turned to his right to see if he could see JKF when he was holding his throat, didn’t and started to turn to his left and then he said he was hit.  The next shot or shots were frangible rounds, one from the back and one from the front. One fired by Hickey and the other by the shooter on the grassy knoll. So now the lone shooter theory is out the window. Way too many witnesses said a shot came from the grassy knoll; gunshot sound and some smoke. And you have all the Hickey witnesses saying he was holding a gun and some thought he had fired it. Throw in the gun smoke smelled by so many witnesses in the motorcade, the smokes alignment with the motorcade, and the wind also being in alignment with the motorcade say’s that a gun was fired in the motorcade.

The frangible round from the back explains JFK’s head movement as witnessed by all the melon tests, (btw I weighed a large round watermelon the other day and it weighed 14 lbs.) The bullet passes through the head some distance and then explodes. It looks like it traveled 2-3 inches and then exploded blowing JFK’s brain mater forward and his head back like in the watermelon tests.

That's my story and I am sticking to it...........

Does anyone know if there is a thread “Who shot JFK and why?”
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 26, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
So I think I will sum up my stand and then move onto a new topic like “Who shot JFK and why?”

There were several shooters, 6th floor of the TSBD, the grassy knoll, accidental shot from Hickey, possibly from the Dal Tex building, and possibly another from a sewer.  The sewer I don’t buy it but it’s out there.

The first shot hit’s the pavement and ricocheted fragments hit JFK in the back of the head and he says “I’m hit”. Next shot from behind hit’s JFK in the back and exits his throat and possibly hits Connolly in the back and out his chest, through his wrist and into his leg. Or Connolly got hit by a third bullet possibly from the Dal Tex building. His movements after JFK got hit, and his testimony states he turned to his right to see if he could see JKF when he was holding his throat, didn’t and started to turn to his left and then he said he was hit.  The next shot or shots were frangible rounds, one from the back and one from the front. One fired by Hickey and the other by the shooter on the grassy knoll. So now the lone shooter theory is out the window. Way too many witnesses said a shot came from the grassy knoll; gunshot sound and some smoke. And you have all the Hickey witnesses saying he was holding a gun and some thought he had fired it. Throw in the gun smoke smelled by so many witnesses in the motorcade, the smokes alignment with the motorcade, and the wind also being in alignment with the motorcade say’s that a gun was fired in the motorcade.

The frangible round from the back explains JFK’s head movement as witnessed by all the melon tests, (btw I weighed a large round watermelon the other day and it weighed 14 lbs.) The bullet passes through the head some distance and then explodes. It looks like it traveled 2-3 inches and then exploded blowing JFK’s brain mater forward and his head back like in the watermelon tests.

That's my story and I am sticking to it...........

Does anyone know if there is a thread “Who shot JFK and why?”

This is one of many "non-magic" "simplified" counters to the Single-Bullet Theory. LOL.

"One fired by Hickey". See the Bronson 8mm film of the assassination.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 26, 2020, 07:57:08 PM

I hate to be blunt, but that is just an idiotic argument. It shows you have no clue what you're talking about. You are just making up nonsense on the fly.

FYI, even today, most FMJ bullets are copper-jacketed. As I told you in my thread on the evidence that JFK's head was hit by frangible ammo, just go to any major website that sells ammo, and you'll see that most FMJ bullets are copper-jacketed.

And let me remind you again, since you keep ignoring this point, that not one of the WCC/MC FMJ bullets fired into skulls in Olivier's WC ballistics tests fragmented into dozens of fragments inside and/or outside the skull, much less magically deposited two fragments on the outer table of the skull. Not a single one of them did this. Not one.

Let me also remind you that you claim that WCC/MC FMJ bullet CE 399 penetrated seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone, and yet not only did not fragment but, incredibly, emerged with its lands and grooves intact and with all but 3-4 grains of its substance.

I know you don't know anything about ammo or ballistics, but the fact that CE 399's lands and grooves are intact is incredible. This suggests it was fired into cloth, or some other soft material, and then retrieved.

No FMJ bullet down here on Earth is going to smash 4 inches of rib and shatter a radius bone and still have its lands and grooves intact. But that's your fairy tale. Yet, then you turn around and claim that, "Oh, yeah, a WCC/MC FMJ bullet hit Kennedy in the head, shattered into over 40 fragments, left two fragments on the outer table of the skull, and even ejected its nose and tail into the limousine!"

Even on something as well established as the fact that FMJ ammo usually does not fragment in skull shots and that on those few occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment in skull shots, they only break into a few pieces and never into dozens of tiny fragments--even on this well-established fact you can't bring yourself to be objective and just acknowledge the fact.

Where is the true ballistic expert who agrees with any of your points?

A true ballistic expert. A professional. Who participates in systematic scientific experiments? Whose testimony has been accepted in a court of law, on ballistic questions, like “Was this the weapon that fired this bullet?”.

And who is talking about WCC/MC bullets specifically, not FMJ bullets in general. My impression is that most FMJ bullets have a minimum velocity below which that bullet will not deform that is higher than the muzzle velocity. So those bullets will not deform when striking bone under real world circumstances. But this is not true of the WCC/MC bullet which deforms at or above 1700 feet per second and has a muzzle velocity of 2150 feet per second. So, it is possible for bone to deform and fragment WCC/MC bullets. As seen with the “Skull Shot # 8170”. All of this can be seen in Larry Sturdivan’s “The JFK Myths”, in Table II on page 118 and in Figure 20 on page 122.

How do you explain the fragmenting of “Skull Shot # 8170”, if it is impossible for WCC/MC bullet to be fragmented by a skull?

We are all still waiting.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Joe Elliott on August 26, 2020, 11:22:19 PM

And let me remind you again, since you keep ignoring this point, that not one of the WCC/MC FMJ bullets fired into skulls in Olivier's WC ballistics tests fragmented into dozens of fragments inside and/or outside the skull, much less magically deposited two fragments on the outer table of the skull. Not a single one of them did this. Not one.

I understand that Dr. Olivier was using, not the heads of recently dead humans, nor the heads of recently head animals, but bare skulls. Is this correct? Dried out skulls? Could this cause the difference in the Dr. Olivier test and the test that Larry Sturdivan was talking about.

On the question of “Can WCC/MC bullets fragment by hitting a skull?”, if sometimes they do and sometimes, they don’t, what is the answer? The answer is YES. A one-time test, where the bullet fragment means that yes, it can fragment. Which means the CT arguments that a WCC/MC could not have been the bullet that struck the head is false. It is a lie.

And this is doubly true if, yes, they sometimes fail to fragment, particularly when they strike a dried-out skull. But not when they strike the skull of a human or an animal that died just recently.

I would prefer if we only cite any experiments that are conducted on skulls of animals that recently died, not on dried out skulls. I mean, after all, if I took two old skeletons, build a “ballistic gel” body around both, and recreated CE 399 by shooting through both bodies, would this really be a fair test? Could it be that a real body with fresh bones would damage a WCC/MC bullet more than dried out bones from a skeleton would? Something like this would only be valid if conducted with animal bones that died as recently as possible, like within 24 hours.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 27, 2020, 12:26:02 AM
Jerry, I cannot make out anything in the Bronson film, what am I supposed to see?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 28, 2020, 09:50:34 PM
"This is one of many "non-magic" "simplified" counters to the Single-Bullet Theory. LOL."

What so you mean by "simplified counter" to the single-bullet theory?
1. You have many witnesses claiming a bullet was fired from the grassy knoll. Most likely the throat shot.
2. You have a shooter on the sixth floor TSBD.
3. Evidence in JFK's skull that he was hit with a frangible round.
4. Evidence that Hickey fired the fatal shot accidentally.

We don't need a single bullet theory, the only reason it exists is because they wanted to blame it all on Oswald. That's the only way they could pin it all on one person, case closed.

It just dawned that JFK got hit at least 4 times; fragments to the back of the head from the ricochet, once in the back, once in the throat, and once more in the head.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 29, 2020, 12:59:48 AM
"This is one of many "non-magic" "simplified" counters to the Single-Bullet Theory. LOL."

What so you mean by "simplified counter" to the single-bullet theory?
1. You have many witnesses claiming a bullet was fired from the grassy knoll. Most likely the throat shot.

Sam Holland originally said the "puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees." In his testimony, Holland said he ran there first: "Went up to behind the arcade as far as you could go."

The "puff of smoke" could be anything. Six months after the events, Holland still wasn't sure: "There was a shot, a report, I don’t know whether it was a shot." By time he met Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson, he was re-enacting a gunman's position behind the fence line.

Quote
2. You have a shooter on the sixth floor TSBD.
3. Evidence in JFK's skull that he was hit with a frangible round.
4. Evidence that Hickey fired the fatal shot accidentally.

Just not, IMO, seeing Hickey standing high enough in the Bronson film.

(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/bronson_254_083013.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
From Dale Myers site. Arrow points to agent in back seat.
IMO, Hickey is probably the more elevated of the two agents.
 
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/firstshot/willis-bretzner-labelled.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)

(https://images2.imgbox.com/51/ba/5CbPyY7I_o.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
From the Pat Speer site.
 
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6e/3c/hIIVCKtq_o.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
From the Pat Speer site.

The heads of the two agents in the back seat don't go higher than the heads of the agents on the running boards. Neither agent in the back seat is elevated enough to fire a shot over the Queen Mary windshield. Pat Speer flipped the line drawing of the Hickey shot from the "Mortal Error" book and superimposed it over a Bronson film frame.

Quote
We don't need a single bullet theory, the only reason it exists is because they wanted to blame it all on Oswald. That's the only way they could pin it all on one person, case closed.

The Warren Report offers their actual rationale.

Quote
It just dawned that JFK got hit at least 4 times; fragments to the back of the head from the ricochet, once in the back, once in the throat, and once more in the head.

So they wanted it to be known an assassination team took out Kennedy, albeit Keystone-Cops-esque?

Or... if the conspirators wanted a lone-assassin subterfuge, they picked a lousy way of accomplishing it.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on August 29, 2020, 01:29:07 AM
“Sam Holland originally said the "puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees." In his testimony, Holland said he ran there first: "Went up to behind the arcade as far as you could go."

The "puff of smoke" could be anything. Six months after the events, Holland still wasn't sure: "There was a shot, a report, I don’t know whether it was a shot." By time he met Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson, he was re-enacting a gunman's position behind the fence line.”
Sam Holland is one out what, twenty witnesses, that said the shot came from the grassy knoll, twenty to one aren’t good odds.

“The heads of the two agents in the back seat don't go higher than the heads of the agents on the running boards. Neither agent in the back seat is elevated enough to fire a shot over the Queen Mary windshield. Pat Speer flipped the line drawing of the Hickey shot from the "Mortal Error" book and superimposed it over a Bronson film frame.”

Witnesses to Hickey holding and possibly firing a “rifle”:
•   Dallas Mayor, Earl Cabel. see’s one Secret Service agent standup with a sub-machine gun.
•   Senator Yarbrough also saw a rifle.
•   Agent Winston rides in the front of JFK in the lead car. He noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow up car, “I first thought that he had fired it”.
•   Sam Holland, a witness, is standing on top of the underpass as the motorcade is going under him. “After the first shot, the Secret Service agent raised up with a machine gun and dropped back down into the seat. WC Vol XIX, ex 5323, pg 480
•   Roy Kellerman testified there was an AR15 in the motorcade.
•   Hugh Betner saw one Secret Service agent pull out a gun, he was standing watching the motorcade. vol XXIV, ex 2003, pg 200
•   A police officer on the over pass as the motorcade passing under saw an agent swinging around the gun.
•   Margaret Chisolm WC vol XIX, ex 5323, pg 472 saw agents stand up and sit back down.
•   Jean Hill – Saw JFK grab his chest and fall forward and she thinks she saw men in plain clothes shooting back. WC Vol XXIV, Ex 2003, pg 212
•   Ralph Yarborough saw a SS Agent pull out a rifle. WC Vol VII, pg 439

“The Warren Report offers their actual rationale.”

We know what the purpose of the Warren Report was, hide the fact that it was a conspiracy.


"So they wanted it to be known an assassination team took out Kennedy, albeit Keystone-Cops-esque? Or... if the conspirators wanted a lone-assassin subterfuge, they picked a lousy way of accomplishing it."

No, the only shot that missed was the first one, all the others hit a target. I believe they did want it to look like a lone gunman but they had the shooter on the grassy knoll as insurance, he was not getting out of there alive.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Gerry Down on September 15, 2020, 11:57:52 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/51/ba/5CbPyY7I_o.jpg)

Shouldn't this kind of a shot have knocked Kennedys head forward not back and to the left?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on September 15, 2020, 01:48:16 PM
Gerry,
If you watch all the simulated "melon" shooting you see in most instances that the melon explodes out the front, the the back part of the melon goes backwards.
Imagine a bullet that explodes when striking something. It is moving so fast, 3,300 ft/sec, it enters the head, travels some distance and then explodes. Let's say it travels 6 inches and explodes, remember, 3,300 ft/sec, it doesn't take much for it to travel the 6 inches. Now where is the bullet when it explodes? It's just below JFK's front right forehead and it explodes. It blows in all directions; blowing that area of JFK's skull out and away and also blows backwards thus pushing JFK's head back and to the left.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Gerry Down on September 16, 2020, 12:15:16 AM
Gerry,
If you watch all the simulated "melon" shooting you see in most instances that the melon explodes out the front, the the back part of the melon goes backwards.
Imagine a bullet that explodes when striking something. It is moving so fast, 3,300 ft/sec, it enters the head, travels some distance and then explodes. Let's say it travels 6 inches and explodes, remember, 3,300 ft/sec, it doesn't take much for it to travel the 6 inches. Now where is the bullet when it explodes? It's just below JFK's front right forehead and it explodes. It blows in all directions; blowing that area of JFK's skull out and away and also blows backwards thus pushing JFK's head back and to the left.

The bones broke at the front of the head. Wouldn't the breaking of these bones pull the head forward?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on September 16, 2020, 03:55:21 PM
"The bones broke at the front of the head. Wouldn't the breaking of these bones pull the head forward?"

No, because the blast is forward coming out of his forehead, like a rocket taking off. Blast goes one way the rocket goes in the opposite direction. Another example: It’s kind of like a rifle recoiling; you have this explosion when the bullet is fired, it goes forward and you get the kick backwards.
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Gerry Down on September 17, 2020, 09:11:18 PM
"The bones broke at the front of the head. Wouldn't the breaking of these bones pull the head forward?"

No, because the blast is forward coming out of his forehead, like a rocket taking off. Blast goes one way the rocket goes in the opposite direction. Another example: It’s kind of like a rifle recoiling; you have this explosion when the bullet is fired, it goes forward and you get the kick backwards.

This sounds like the jet effect. Are you saying the spray coming out the front of the head caused Kennedy to be thrown backwards. Just like the recoil of a rifle?
Title: Re: JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories
Post by: Michael Carney on September 17, 2020, 11:42:08 PM
"This sounds like the jet effect. Are you saying the spray coming out the front of the head caused Kennedy to be thrown backwards. Just like the recoil of a rifle?"

The bullet is moving so fast, 3,300 fps, the destruction in the brain is so great that the head explodes. And if the "explosion" opening is located in the right frontal lobe, then the head will be forced away from the explosion, thus back and to the left.