JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on December 17, 2022, 08:40:37 PM

Title: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 17, 2022, 08:40:37 PM
WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.

There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry Sturdivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.

There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:

Quote
A small metallic fragment lies medial to the fracture site between the galea and the outer table of the skull. . . .

A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table. (“Report of G.M. McDonnel,” August 4, 1978, in 7 HSCA 218, 221).

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of them.

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

Quote
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185, emphasis added)

Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.

Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.

So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.

Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.

In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:

Quote
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, in David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 21)

The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that Sturdivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.

Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.


Title: Re: WC Apologists Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 18, 2022, 11:44:45 PM
I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.0.html
In particular my #53 ....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.48.html
And #67....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.64.html
Title: Re: WC Apologists Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 20, 2022, 02:56:50 PM
I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.

[From your first link:]When i say hits i mean it misses JFK & hits the signal arm & then it fragments.
(1) The remnant slug puts a non-round hole in the floor of the limo tween the jump seats (we have a photo) & hits the road.
(2) The copper jacket breaks into 2 pieces as is usual (it is made of 2 pieces joined together), giving us CE567 CE569 found in the car.
(3) Small lead fragments hit JFK in the back of his head (as seen on xrays).
(4) Other larger lead fragments found in the limo might belong to Oswald's shot-1 or they might belong to Hickey's  AR15.

However i reckon that Oswald's shot-1 happened at Z113

This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?

Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z209, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.

Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.
Title: Re: WC Apologists Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 20, 2022, 08:57:29 PM
This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?

Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z207, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.

Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.
If u have a look at my thread/link u will see that Holland reckoned that JFK was obstructed by the signal arm at (pseudo) Z103. I reckoned it woz at (psueudo) Z113.  The diff being a half limo length (10 ft @ 1 Z frame per ft). I am happy to split the diff, in which case Oswald shot-1 woz at say (pseudo) Z108.

The Roselle & Scearce investigation of reactions seen after Z133 concludes that the first shot was at about (pseudo) Z120 i think (i karnt remember), based on typical startle reaction times.

My thread/link includes a reconstructed view from the sniper's nest – this shows that the downwards vertical angle was no problem – something less than 40 deg off horizontal.

The ricochet offa the signal arm is a bit of a problem.  There are 10 possibilities.
A simple ricochet offa the western or eastern side of the eastern guyrod (1)(2), or offa the main pipe (3)(4), or offa the western guyrod (5)(6).
Or a double ricochet offa the eastern guyrod & the pipe (7) – or offa the pipe & the eastern guyrod ( 8 ) – or offa the pipe & the western guyrod (9) – or offa the western guyrod & the pipe (10).

The more i think about it the more i favor a double ricochet – say two slightly glancing kontakts – enuff to break the brass jacket into two (found in the limo), plus give a large remnant lead slug (which makes a hole in the floor of the limo), plus some lead splatter (Xray of head).

There is a possibility that the two brass bits of jacket separated when the slug went through the floor (unlikely i think).
I would have a better idea of the exact possible nature of the ricochet if i could find the youtube footage of i think it was Haag's ricochet tests offa pipe -- or at least find the full report of the ricochet tests -- i think that the youtube requires a $$$ fee.

Holland's (& i think Donahue's) theory that the first shot caused the wound to Tague's left cheek is of course silly.
I have explained that Tague's wound was due to Hickey's first or say second shot of his accidental auto burst of his AR15 at say Z300 to Z313. The last shot being the headshot – the remnant slug cracking the windshield glass. The second last shot denting the chrome trim above the mirror.

In a few minutes time i will insert the above comments onto my two threads from 2021 dealing with these two matters – so as not to derail your present thread.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 20, 2022, 11:53:19 PM
WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.

There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry Sturdivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.

There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of them.

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.

Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.

So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.

Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.

In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:

The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that Sturdivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.

Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.

There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.

Humes: 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. --- ARRB Deposition
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 21, 2022, 01:04:23 PM
There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.

Humes: 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. --- ARRB Deposition

This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.

There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.

Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.

And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 23, 2022, 08:16:44 AM
This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.

There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.

Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.

And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.

Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.

The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there. Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by one of the techs who took them.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 27, 2022, 05:44:50 PM
Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.

The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there.

When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?

Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull. It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?

And I notice you are still ignoring the OD measurements. This is hard science. We now know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that it has been superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment on the rear outer table of the skull. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object is metallic.

Even Larry Sturdivan now admits that the 6.5 mm object is a superimposed image; he argues that it was superimposed by accident, but he has no rational theory for how this alleged accident could have occurred.

Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by one of the techs who took them.

None of those experts had the benefit of OD analysis. None of them realized the telltale signs of alteration in the emulsion of the x-rays. None of them explained the physically impossible conflict between the AP x-ray and the lateral x-rays regarding the 6.5 mm object. None of them even detected that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. None of them offered any explanation for the impossible white patch on the right lateral x-ray. None of them offered any explanation for the stark contradiction between the skull x-rays and the alleged autopsy photos of the brain.

The radiologist and the x-ray tech did not do any kind of an analysis of the skull x-rays. They were shown the x-rays during their interviews and simply declared, based on this brief look, that they believed the x-rays were the same ones they had taken. Yet, the radiologist refused to discuss the 6.5 mm object with Dr. Mantik and said nothing about it in his testimony. The x-ray tech did numerous interviews with Dr. Mantik and not once did he claim that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy or that the radiologist had identified a large object as an artifact.

Why do the extant skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? The only theoretically possible--but utterly preposterous--innocent explanation for this conflict is that the autopsy doctors committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail that was at least 2 inches lower and that started on the opposite side of the skull. Just think, just try to fathom, how even a first-year med student could make such an astonishing error, especially when they had the x-rays and the skull in front of them for over three hours.

Why did Humes say nothing about the right-frontal cloud of fragments plainly visible on the extant right lateral x-ray? He said nothing about it in the autopsy report and nothing about it in his WC testimony. He repeatedly said that the only grouping of small fragments he saw was in the form of a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right orbit. The cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays looks nothing like this; it is in the right-frontal region, some 5 inches from the EOP on the opposite end of the skull, and the fragments next to it trail upward.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 28, 2022, 01:23:58 AM
When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?

When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?

Quote
Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull.

Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), 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.


(https://i.imgur.com/cEV6ajd.jpg)

Quote
It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.



Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 28, 2022, 06:41:04 PM
When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?

Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), 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.


Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

This is just comical, and rather odd. It's like you don't understand what's being said to you, or you just can't bring yourself to deal with it. Let's get a few things straight:

One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it. Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.

Two, again, you can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Both are visible. One is not the other. A 6.5 mm object is not a 7 x 2 mm object. What do you not understand about this basic truth of reality?

Every single expert panel or private expert that has examined the AP x-ray has identified the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on that x-ray. It is ludicrous to suggest that some version of the AP x-ray does not show both objects.

Three, when the ARRB specifically asked Humes about the 6.5 mm object, he said he did not see it during the autopsy. So, obviously, he did not remove it, and, equally obviously, it was not the fragment he was talking about with Specter. 

Four, Reed and Custer most certainly did not "identify it without hesitation" during the autopsy. Custer spent many hours talking with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, and never once, not one single time, did he claim that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

Five, I notice you again ignored the fact that OD measurements confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, and even Larry Sturdivan has conceded that the object is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment but that it must be an artifact. The only question is, how was this artifact created? So, it is just silly and strange that you keep claiming that Humes removed it during the autopsy. Not only did Humes tell the ARRB that he did not see it during the autopsy, but we now know from hard scientific evidence that the object is not metallic.

Six, OD measurements confirm that inside the 6.5 mm object is a 2.5 mm bullet fragment. This fragment is not readily visible to the naked eye, because its image is obscured by the bright 6.5 mm object, but it is visible under high magnification, and its metallic nature is confirmed by OD measurements.

Seven, I notice you once again ignored the McDonnel fragment. Why do you keep ignoring this crucial piece of evidence? Because your theory of the shooting has no rational, plausible explanation for it? If the 6.5 mm object, as Sturdivan admits, cannot be a bullet fragment from an FMJ bullet, then the McDonnel fragment surely cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment either.


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 29, 2022, 02:58:57 AM
This is just comical, and rather odd. It's like you don't understand what's being said to you, or you just can't bring yourself to deal with it. Let's get a few things straight:

One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it. Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.
[...]

As anyone who looks at the x-rays will tell you, the 7x2mm fragment is against the right frontal sinus. That is, the fragment lies above and in front of the eye, not behind it. Now, CE388 shows a fragment that winds up behind and slightly above the eye, but here's the catch: The only thing in the head x-rays that would correspond to this position is the 6.5mm opacity seen in the AP x-ray.

Incoming Gish gallop in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Matt Grantham on December 29, 2022, 03:15:13 AM
 In front of the eye? I only know above, below and behind Maybe i am missing something
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 29, 2022, 04:09:38 AM

One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it.

The 7 x 2 mm fragment was above and somewhat behind the right eye. So again, why haven't you posted the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them?

Quote
Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.

That is false. Humes, Reed and Custer all viewed the AP X-Ray and identified the "6.5 mm" object seen on it as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. The fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye.

Quote
Two, again, you can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Both are visible. One is not the other. A 6.5 mm object is not a 7 x 2 mm object. What do you not understand about this basic truth of reality?

Every single expert panel or private expert that has examined the AP x-ray has identified the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on that x-ray. It is ludicrous to suggest that some version of the AP x-ray does not show both objects.

You would go a long way towards making your case by posting the enhanced lateral X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. When will you do so? When? Seriously, just go ahead and do it. And while you're at it, in the AP view, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.

(https://i.imgur.com/dQJlUHS.png)

Quote
Three, when the ARRB specifically asked Humes about the 6.5 mm object, he said he did not see it during the autopsy. So, obviously, he did not remove it, and, equally obviously, it was not the fragment he was talking about with Specter. 

Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed. It was the fragment that he talked about with Specter.

Quote
Four, Reed and Custer most certainly did not "identify it without hesitation" during the autopsy.

I didn't say that they identified it during the autopsy. Although, they both did. I said that they identified it immediately when shown the enhanced AP X-ray.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night ofthe autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.


Quote
Five, I notice you again ignored the fact that OD measurements confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, and even Larry Sturdivan has conceded that the object is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment but that it must be an artifact. The only question is, how was this artifact created? So, it is just silly and strange that you keep claiming that Humes removed it during the autopsy. Not only did Humes tell the ARRB that he did not see it during the autopsy, but we now know from hard scientific evidence that the object is not metallic.

Six, OD measurements confirm that inside the 6.5 mm object is a 2.5 mm bullet fragment. This fragment is not readily visible to the naked eye, because its image is obscured by the bright 6.5 mm object, but it is visible under high magnification, and its metallic nature is confirmed by OD measurements.

I reject the validity of your OD measurements claims. You are claiming that precise measurements can be made in those X-Rays, when in reality the X-Rays are poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine, which was used for the sole purpose of locating any bullets or large fragments that might have been in the body.

 
Quote
Seven, I notice you once again ignored the McDonnel fragment. Why do you keep ignoring this crucial piece of evidence?

The McDonnel fragment is the one that he describes as being "A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object]". McDonnel erroneously placed the "6.5 mm" fragment on the back of the skull. The small fragment that he described was likely the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes, which he said was in close proximity to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 30, 2022, 12:13:33 PM
The 7 x 2 mm fragment was above and somewhat behind the right eye. So again, why haven't you posted the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them?


Is this some kind of joke? Both the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel identified both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6 x 5 mm object on the AP x-ray, and both panels rejected the absurd idea that the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed was really the 6.5 mm object. It is astounding that you refuse to come to grips with this fact.

You continue to argue that the 6.5 mm object is actually a bullet fragment and that Humes removed it during the autopsy, when nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is not, and could not be, a bullet fragment. What's more, Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. The 6.5 mm object is, well, 6.5 mm. Again, it is just amazing that you cannot face these facts.

That is false. Humes, Reed and Custer all viewed the AP X-Ray and identified the "6.5 mm" object seen on it as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

No, they did not, and your quotes do not actually say this. You are inferring something they did not say.

You're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

The fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye.

I did not say it was removed from "frontal skull bone." I said it was removed from the frontal part of the skull. I was not referring to bone but to the frontal area of the head. 

You would go a long way towards making your case by posting the enhanced lateral X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. When will you do so? When? Seriously, just go ahead and do it. And while you're at it, in the AP view, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.

Really? Take a look at this graphic:

(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5723eaf525a7ff2f052548e18b45caaae07aae32/2-Figure1-1.png)

See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Or, look at Figure 17 on page 111 of Volume 7 of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. This is an enlargement of the enhanced AP x-ray. You can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf

Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed.

He did no such thing. When he was asked specifically about the 6.5 mm object, he said he didn't remember seeing anything that big during the autopsy, as we'll see in a moment. Are you talking about this answer that Humes gave?:

Quote
A. 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.

Is this what you're talking about? I discussed this comment in a previous reply. Humes was speaking off-the-cuff and blundering badly. He was speculating. He did not say the 6.5 object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment--he said it "could" be. But this answer contradicts what he said when he was asked about the 6.5 mm object.

Additionally, how could a 6.5 mm object be a 7 x 2 mm object? Did no one at the autopsy know how to measure? This is ludicrous.

Perhaps this graphic will help--it shows the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the front part of the skull and the small fragment on the back of the skull that should be--but is not--the corresponding lateral image of the 6.5 mm object:

(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5723eaf525a7ff2f052548e18b45caaae07aae32/2-Figure2-1.png)

See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Now, let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:

Quote
_______________________________________
Page 212

Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray.
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213

Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe.
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size.
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others.


So let's hear no more of the false claim that Humes told the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. He made it clear that he neither saw nor removed a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

And, again, you're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

I didn't say that they identified it during the autopsy. Although, they both did. I said that they identified it immediately when shown the enhanced AP X-ray.

Of course they identified it when shown the AP x-ray during their interviews! No kidding! As I've noted dozens of times in this forum, the 6.5 mm object is the most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, which makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that the object was on the x-rays at the autopsy but that everyone "missed" it.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night ofthe autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.

Reed was either lying or misremembering. If he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, why isn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Custer, in all his many hours of interviews with Dr. Mantik, never say that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy? Why did Humes say he did not see it during the autopsy? Why didn't Ebersole mention the object during this testimony? Why did Ebersole refuse to discuss the 6.5 mm object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it in what had been, up to that point, a very friendly and open interview? Why did Finck and Boswell both say that they did not see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy?

-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.[/i]

Custer obviously goofed. The Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel said it was on the rear outer table of the skull, and they cited it as evidence of their proposed cowlick entry site.

Dr. McDonnel, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Davis, and the three ARRB forensic experts likewise placed the object on the back of the skull. Dr. Davis, one of the HSCA's forensic consultants, said the following about the 6.5 mm object's location:

Quote
There is a metallic fragment about 9 or 1O cm above the external occipital protuberance, which metallic fragment is apparently imbedded in the outer table of the skull. On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2 .5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda. (David O. Davis, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 7 HSCA 222, Addendum D)

I'm assuming you understand that Dr. Davis and Dr. McDonnel were not on the HSCA medical panel but were experts consulted by that panel. They were asked to review the autopsy x-rays and to submit reports on them.

I reject the validity of your OD measurements claims. You are claiming that precise measurements can be made in those X-Rays, when in reality the X-Rays are poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine, which was used for the sole purpose of locating any bullets or large fragments that might have been in the body.

Ah, so here we have it! You reject the established science of optical density measurement on x-rays because the results of two independent OD analyses of the autopsy skull x-rays prove that those x-rays have been altered. I'm guessing you don't care that two scientists independently did OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays and that their measurements match almost perfectly. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Arthur Haas, who was the chief of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics at the time, proof-read Dr. Mantik's first OD study on the x-rays. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a radiation oncologist and physicist, after reviewing Dr. Mantik's two most recent OD analyses of the autopsy x-rays, says that "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology." I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were confirmed by Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who also did OD measurements on JFK's premortem x-rays in Boston.

As for your claim that the autopsy x-rays are "poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine," even Dr. Ebersole said that the GE 250 x-ray machine that they used was good enough for their purpose, which was to locate bullet fragments. Dr. Chesser notes the following about the quality of the autopsy skull x-rays:

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. (https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)


The McDonnel fragment is the one that he describes as being "A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object]". McDonnel erroneously placed the "6.5 mm" fragment on the back of the skull. The small fragment that he described was likely the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes, which he said was in close proximity to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

LOL! Oh, so McDonnel "erroneously" placed the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull?! Really?! Well, again, the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel also placed the object on the back of the skull! Dr. Davis placed the object on the back of the skull. The ARRB's three forensic experts placed the object on the back of the skull. Even Dr. Lattimer placed the object in the back of the skull! What in the world are you talking about? Do you understand how silly your claims are here?

No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment. McDonnel specified that the fragment was "between the galea and the outer table of the skull."

And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.

Are you ever going to deal with Larry Sturdivan's observations on why the 6.5 mm object simply cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment? His compelling case on this issue is the reason that nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is an artifact. The only issue is whether the artifact was created accidentally or intentionally. Yet, here you are, apparently caught in a time warp, still arguing that the object is a bullet fragment.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 30, 2022, 04:52:15 PM

Is this some kind of joke? Both the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel identified both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6 x 5 mm object on the AP x-ray, and both panels rejected the absurd idea that the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed was really the 6.5 mm object. It is astounding that you refuse to come to grips with this fact.

Is that the same HSCA medical panel that confirmed that the autopsy X-Rays were authentic and unaltered?

Quote
You continue to argue that the 6.5 mm object is actually a bullet fragment and that Humes removed it during the autopsy, when nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is not, and could not be, a bullet fragment. What's more, Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. The 6.5 mm object is, well, 6.5 mm. Again, it is just amazing that you cannot face these facts.

Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm.

Quote
No, they did not, and your quotes do not actually say this. You are inferring something they did not say.

Reed's and Custer's words speak for themselves.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
..........
Gunn: If you recall, in the first X-ray that you looked at, we discussed a semi-circular item that looked -
Reed: The artifact?
Gunn: No, not the artifact. I think you identified it as a bullet fragment. Are you able to identify that bullet fragment in the lateral view?
Reed: Yes, I can.
Gunn: Where is that?
Reed: In the frontal lobe of the skull.
Gunn: And you are pointing to -
Reed: The front. Right above the suptaorbital rim of this right occiput - of his right orbit.
Gunn: You don’t mean “occiput” -
Reed: No, scratch that. Of the orbit. Supraorbital rim. It is right impregnated in there.

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

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.


The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from the right orbital ridge.

Quote
You're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

Boswell initially said that he didn't recognize it but later allowed that it could very well be the fragment. Finck did not say that he did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He said that he didn't remember seeing it but added "But that doesn't mean I didn't see it. It means I don't recall."

Quote
I did not say it was removed from "frontal skull bone." I said it was removed from the frontal part of the skull. I was not referring to bone but to the frontal area of the head. 

There is a fragment seen in the lateral view that looks to be in the frontal skull bone. I just wanted to be sure that you were not claiming that it is the one removed by Humes.

Quote
Really? Take a look at this graphic:

(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5723eaf525a7ff2f052548e18b45caaae07aae32/2-Figure1-1.png)

See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Or, look at Figure 17 on page 111 of Volume 7 of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. This is an enlargement of the enhanced AP x-ray. You can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf

Perhaps this graphic will help:

(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5723eaf525a7ff2f052548e18b45caaae07aae32/2-Figure2-1.png)

See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Wait. What? You are claiming that the fragment imbedded in the forehead was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes? Am I understanding you correctly? In what world could that reasonably be considered to be somewhat behind the right eye?

BTW, your google.com links are not working.

Quote
Now, let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:

As I said, that's Humes basically acknowledging that the '6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.

Quote
Additionally, how could a 6.5 mm object be a 7 x 2 mm object? Did no one at the autopsy know how to measure? This is ludicrous.

Again, Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm. Or approximated anyway.

Quote
Of course they identified it when shown the AP x-ray during their interviews! No kidding! As I've noted dozens of times in this forum, the 6.5 mm object is the most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, which makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that the object was on the x-rays at the autopsy but that everyone "missed" it.

They didn't miss it at the autopsy.

Quote
Reed was either lying or misremembering. If he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, why isn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Custer, in all his many hours of interviews with Dr. Mantik, never say that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy? Why did Humes say he did not see it during the autopsy? Why didn't Ebersole mention the object during this testimony? Why did Ebersole refuse to discuss the 6.5 mm objecen Dr. Mantik asked him about it in what had been, up to that point, a very friendly and open interview? Why did Finck and Boswell both say that they did not see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy?

Ahh, so Reed was lying eh? LOL! The 6.5 mm fragment is mentioned in the autopsy report. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye. Why do you ask the same questions multiple times in a single post?

Quote
Custer obviously goofed.

LOL!

Quote
Ah, so here we have it! You reject the established science of optical density measurement on x-rays because the results of two independent OD analyses of the autopsy skull x-rays prove that those x-rays have been altered. I'm guessing you don't care that two scientists independently did OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays and that their measurements match almost perfectly. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Arthur Haas, who was the chief of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics at the time, proof-read Dr. Mantik's first OD study on the x-rays. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a radiation oncologist and physicist, after reviewing Dr. Mantik's two most recent OD analyses of the autopsy x-rays, says that "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology." I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were confirmed by Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who also did OD measurements on JFK's premortem x-rays in Boston.

I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.

Quote
As for your claim that the autopsy x-rays are "poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine," even Dr. Ebersole said that the GE 250 x-ray machine that they used was good enough for their purpose, which was to locate bullet fragments.


Which is exactly what I said.

Quote
LOL! Oh, so McDonnel "erroneously" placed the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull?! Really?

Really.

Quote
Well, again, the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel also placed the object on the back of the skull! Dr. Davis placed the object on the back of the skull. The ARRB's three forensic experts placed the object on the back of the skull. Even Dr. Lattimer placed the object in the back of the skull! What in the world are you talking about? Do you understand how silly your claims are here?

They were all wrong.

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray."
-- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. in Neuroscience, specializing in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology.

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater


Quote
No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Yes it is.

Quote
And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.

Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Quote
Are you ever going to deal with Larry Sturdivan's observations on why the 6.5 mm object simply cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment? His compelling case on this issue is the reason that nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is an artifact. The only issue is whether the artifact was created accidentally or intentionally. Yet, here you are, apparently caught in a time warp, still arguing that the object is a bullet fragment.

Sturdivan said that it could not be a FMJ bullet fragment on the back of the skull. He's right. It wasn't on the back of the skull. It was above and somewhat behind the right eye.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 30, 2022, 06:39:44 PM
BTW, your google.com links are not working.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/13/6f/cBnbeaSl_o.png)

"Request access". May mean link-sharing for this item or folder on Griffin's Google Drive is restricted to "people added":

(https://storage.googleapis.com/support-forums-api/attachment/message-46043069-8397298997896350803.png)

"People added" may be default. Needs to change it to "Anyone with the link" can view it.

Quote
I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.

Mantik may be able to function--like Ben Carson--in the clinical environment of a modern hospital with strict oversight and the use of predictable results on calibrated equipment. Outside the hospital, he traffics in the Zapruder film being altered, and can't get the bullet through the neck from C7-level to T1-level.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 31, 2022, 12:43:31 PM
Is that the same HSCA medical panel that confirmed that the autopsy X-Rays were authentic and unaltered?

Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm.

Reed's and Custer's words speak for themselves.

[SNIP]

The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from the right orbital ridge.

Boswell initially said that he didn't recognize it but later allowed that it could very well be the fragment. Finck did not say that he did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He said that he didn't remember seeing it but added "But that doesn't mean I didn't see it. It means I don't recall."

There is a fragment seen in the lateral view that looks to be in the frontal skull bone. I just wanted to be sure that you were not claiming that it is the one removed by Humes.

Wait. What? You are claiming that the fragment imbedded in the forehead was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes? Am I understanding you correctly? In what world could that reasonably be considered to be somewhat behind the right eye?

BTW, your google.com links are not working.

As I said, that's Humes basically acknowledging that the '6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.

Again, Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm. Or approximated anyway.

They didn't miss it at the autopsy.

Ahh, so Reed was lying eh? LOL! The 6.5 mm fragment is mentioned in the autopsy report. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye. Why do you ask the same questions multiple times in a single post?

LOL!

I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.
 
Which is exactly what I said.

Really.

They were all wrong.

[Long quote from one of Dr. Joseph Riley's articles SNIPPED]

Yes it is.

Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Sturdivan said that it could not be a FMJ bullet fragment on the back of the skull. He's right. It wasn't on the back of the skull. It was above and somewhat behind the right eye.

Okay, this will be my last reply to you. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense and evasion. A few final thoughts:

Virtually no one accepts everything that the HSCA medical panel said, but you can't even accept something as basic as the location of the 6.5 mm object, even though the HSCA placement of the object has been confirmed by all the experts who have examined the x-rays, with the sole exception of Dr. Joseph Riley and retired x-ray technician Jerrol Custer.

You pounce on Riley's placement of the 6.5 mm object, but I'm guessing you do not accept Riley's finding that two bullets struck JFK in the head, right? Here are two of Riley's articles in which he makes the case that two bullets must have struck Kennedy's skull:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf

And, again, Custer did not do an in-depth analysis of the skull x-rays. He gave his opinion about the location of the 6.5 mm object while being shown the skull x-rays during his ARRB interview. An opinion given under such circumstances can hardly be considered a conclusion that was based on careful, prolonged analysis.

But, nah, you'll take Custer's off-the-cuff placement and Riley's placement over the placement of

-- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz)
-- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. Lattimer
-- Dr. McDonnel
-- Dr. Chesser
-- Dr. Aguilar
-- Dr. Henkelmann
-- Dr. Mantik
-- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner)

Your rejection of the OD evidence is beyond lame. It smacks of deliberate evasion and a conscious refusal to deal honestly with data. By the way, the location of the 6.5 mm object has nothing to do with its OD measurements, so it is downright silly for you to say that you reject Dr. Mantik's peer-reviewed OD analysis because you think he's wrong about the location of the 6.5 mm object.

You once again quoted Reed and Custer to the effect that they saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, but Custer's comment, as I've discussed at length, does not necessarily support your argument. Only Reed unequivocally claimed to have seen the object on the x-rays during the autopsy. Again, in all of his many hours of discussions with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, Custer never once claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

There's also the fact that (1) the autopsy report makes no mention of the 6.5 mm object; (2) Dr. Ebersole said nothing about the object in his HSCA testimony; (3) Dr. Ebersole refused to discuss the object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it; (4) Dr. Finck said nothing about the object in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind; and (5) there is no plausible, credible explanation for how the object/artifact could have been accidentally created on the x-rays during the autopsy.

Your twisting of Sturdivan's observations on the 6.5 mm object is embarrassing. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object, the one that you absurdly claim is the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed, is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment. He says the object is an artifact that was accidentally created on the AP x-ray during the autopsy. This means there was no bullet fragment in that location in the skull. So how could Humes have removed it How could he have removed something that was not there?

You are misrepresenting what Humes, Finck, and Boswell said about the 6.5 mm object. I already documented that Humes plainly and clearly stated, when asked specifically about the object, that it was much larger than any of the fragments that he removed and that he did not recall seeing such a large fragment when he examined the x-rays during the autopsy. That's what he said, in plain English, but you refuse to admit it.

In the face of the autopsy doctors' statements that they did not recall seeing the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, you cling to the fact that two of them added the caveat that they may have seen it but no longer remembered seeing it. But, if they saw it during the autopsy, why does the autopsy report say nothing about it? Why didn't Ebersole say anything about it? Why didn't Finck mention it in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind? Why didn't Custer mention having seen it in any of his many interviews with Dr. Mantik? (Mantik and Custer developed a friendship and discussed the autopsy x-rays on many occasions.)

I documented that McDonnel noted that the small fragment that he identified was in the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull," and that it was to the left of the 6.5 object. But, you still refuse to deal with this fragment in a rational manner and instead make the absurd argument that it is either the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes removed from the frontal area of the head or the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. This is impossible. The McDonnel fragment is between the galea and the rear outer table of the skull, and its location does not overlap the location of the 6.5 mm object--it is to the left of the object.

You can't deal rationally with the McDonnel fragment because that fragment can only be a ricochet fragment from a missed shot that the lone-gunman theory cannot credibly explain.

Finally, your refusal to admit that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray is nothing short of astonishing. In all my years of online discussions, I've never seen such an amazing refusal to acknowledge such an undeniable fact. I showed you concrete proof that the AP x-ray shows the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object, and that the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. Yet, you still refuse to accept this reality and offer only lame, comical evasions to avoid dealing with this self-evident fact.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 31, 2022, 01:59:41 PM
Okay, this will be my last reply to you. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense and evasion. A few final thoughts:

Virtually no one accepts everything that the HSCA medical panel said, but you can't even accept something as basic as the location of the 6.5 mm object, even though the HSCA placement of the object has been confirmed by all the experts who have examined the x-rays, with the sole exception of Dr. Joseph Riley and retired x-ray technician Jerrol Custer.

You pounce on Riley's placement of the 6.5 mm object, but I'm guessing you do not accept Riley's finding that two bullets struck JFK in the head, right? Here are two of Riley's articles in which he makes the case that two bullets must have struck Kennedy's skull:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf

And, again, Custer did not do an in-depth analysis of the skull x-rays. He gave his opinion about the location of the 6.5 mm object while being shown the skull x-rays during his ARRB interview. An opinion given under such circumstances can hardly be considered a conclusion that was based on careful, prolonged analysis.

But, nah, you'll take Custer's off-the-cuff placement and Riley's placement over the placement of

-- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz)
-- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. Lattimer
-- Dr. McDonnel
-- Dr. Chesser
-- Dr. Aguilar
-- Dr. Henkelmann
-- Dr. Mantik
-- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner)

Your rejection of the OD evidence is beyond lame. It smacks of deliberate evasion and a conscious refusal to deal honestly with data. By the way, the location of the 6.5 mm object has nothing to do with its OD measurements, so it is downright silly for you to say that you reject Dr. Mantik's peer-reviewed OD analysis because you think he's wrong about the location of the 6.5 mm object.

You once again quoted Reed and Custer to the effect that they saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, but Custer's comment, as I've discussed at length, does not necessarily support your argument. Only Reed unequivocally claimed to have seen the object on the x-rays during the autopsy. Again, in all of his many hours of discussions with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, Custer never once claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

There's also the fact that (1) the autopsy report makes no mention of the 6.5 mm object; (2) Dr. Ebersole said nothing about the object in his HSCA testimony; (3) Dr. Ebersole refused to discuss the object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it; (4) Dr. Finck said nothing about the object in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind; and (5) there is no plausible, credible explanation for how the object/artifact could have been accidentally created on the x-rays during the autopsy.

Your twisting of Sturdivan's observations on the 6.5 mm object is embarrassing. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object, the one that you absurdly claim is the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed, is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment. He says the object is an artifact that was accidentally created on the AP x-ray during the autopsy. This means there was no bullet fragment in that location in the skull. So how could Humes have removed it How could he have removed something that was not there?

You are misrepresenting what Humes, Finck, and Boswell said about the 6.5 mm object. I already documented that Humes plainly and clearly stated, when asked specifically about the object, that it was much larger than any of the fragments that he removed and that he did not recall seeing such a large fragment when he examined the x-rays during the autopsy. That's what he said, in plain English, but you refuse to admit it.

In the face of the autopsy doctors' statements that they did not recall seeing the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, you cling to the fact that two of them added the caveat that they may have seen it but no longer remembered seeing it. But, if they saw it during the autopsy, why does the autopsy report say nothing about it? Why didn't Ebersole say anything about it? Why didn't Finck mention it in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind? Why didn't Custer mention having seen it in any of his many interviews with Dr. Mantik? (Mantik and Custer developed a friendship and discussed the autopsy x-rays on many occasions.)

I documented that McDonnel noted that the small fragment that he identified was in the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull," and that it was to the left of the 6.5 object. But, you still refuse to deal with this fragment in a rational manner and instead make the absurd argument that it is either the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes removed from the frontal area of the head or the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. This is impossible. The McDonnel fragment is between the galea and the rear outer table of the skull, and its location does not overlap the location of the 6.5 mm object--it is to the left of the object.

You can't deal rationally with the McDonnel fragment because that fragment can only be a ricochet fragment from a missed shot that the lone-gunman theory cannot credibly explain.

Finally, your refusal to admit that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray is nothing short of astonishing. In all my years of online discussions, I've never seen such an amazing refusal to acknowledge such an undeniable fact. I showed you concrete proof that the AP x-ray shows the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object, and that the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. Yet, you still refuse to accept this reality and offer only lame, comical evasions to avoid dealing with this self-evident fact.

You claim that the fragment that appears to be imbedded in the forehead in the lateral view was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes. But you fail to reconcile that with the fact that the 7 x 2mm  fragment removed by Humes was somewhat behind the right eye. Behind the right orbit.

(https://i.imgur.com/cEV6ajd.jpg)
You've been cornered and can't explain your way out. So, you've decided to bail. Why not be honest here and just admit your conundrum? The 6.5 mm circular object is the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes. The autopsy X-rays are authentic and unaltered. No Radiologist or film analysis expert that has viewed the X-Rays has concluded otherwise. That circular opaque object would not have gone unnoticed at the time of the autopsy. Both of the X-Ray techs who took the X-Rays stated that the circular opaque object seen in the AP view was a metallic fragment that was located in the right orbital ridge.

In the lateral view, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is visible just above and behind the right eye. Credit to Pat Speers. I highly recommend Pat's chapter 18b, which can be found on his home page. Actually, all of his sections pertaining to the head wounds are worth reading.

(https://i.imgur.com/6EHLrcN.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 31, 2022, 04:32:07 PM
Speaking of Jerrol Custer, we should remember that Custer told Dr. Mantik and the ARRB that the morning after the assassination, he was called into the radiology suite by Dr. Ebersole and was told to tape some metallic fragments to skull bones. These, explained Custer, were then to be taken to a private room and x-rayed with the same machine, at the same distance, that he used the night before during the autopsy. Custer added that Ebersole said these x-rays would be used to make a bust of JFK:

Quote
I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy. . . . He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bone. . . .(ARRB interview transcript, 10/28/97, p. 144)

Ebersole told the HSCA that several weeks after the autopsy, he was summoned to the White House by the Secret Service (who controlled the autopsy materials) to examine the skull x-rays. Ebersole said that the purpose of his visit was to assist in preparing a bust of JFK, and that while there he drew a straight pencil line obliquely across one of the lateral x-rays (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/78, pp. 16-18).

Obviously, taping bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-raying the bones had nothing to do with making a bust of JFK. Ultimately, the plotters obviously opted not to use these x-rays because they realized that the autopsy x-rays could be altered via darkroom techniques that would be extremely hard to detect at the time.

I left out a few names of experts who place the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head:

-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics consultant)
-- Kathy Cunningham (RN)
-- Dr. Jon K. Lattimer (MD, son of Dr. John Lattimer)
-- Dr. Eric Haubner (MD)

Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham explain the appearance of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays in relation to its location:

Quote
It is visible on the “anterior-posterior” X-ray as a very dense, 6.5-mm object that sits squarely in the middle of the right bony eye socket, or “orbit.”

This AP (Anterior-Posterior) X-Ray from JFK's autopsy shows a 6.5 mm notched circular object just left of the nose; this is alleged to be a cross-sectional fragment of the bullet which struck the head. Several implausibilities surround this object, as noted herein.

Of course, the object is not really “in” the eye socket; it is in the rear of the skull. It just “projects” through the orbit on the X-ray which “sees” through all the layers at once. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)

As most here know, before Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis of the 6.5 mm object, and before Dr. Sturdivan's wound ballistics analysis of the 6.5 mm object, the position stated by government panels and by WC apologists was that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was scraped off an FMJ bullet as it entered the alleged cowlick entry site in the back of the head.

But now that has all been exploded. The ARRB forensic experts debunked the cowlick entry site. Private experts, including Sturdivan, have likewise debunked it. WC apologists ignored Dr. Mantik's OD measurements, even after Dr. Chesser confirmed them with his own OD measurements. However, after Sturdivan demolished the idea that the 6.5 mm object was a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet and explained why the object must be an artifact, WC apologists soon began to adopt Sturdivan's position.

The 6.5 mm object decimates the lone-gunman theory. On top of this, the McDonnel fragment and the 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object pose impossible problems for the lone-gunman theory, since they could not have come from an FMJ bullet, and since they are not near an entry point. They can only be ricochet fragments.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 31, 2022, 09:58:09 PM
As most here know, before Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis of the 6.5 mm object, and before Dr. Sturdivan's wound ballistics analysis of the 6.5 mm object, the position stated by government panels and by WC apologists was that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was scraped off an FMJ bullet as it entered the alleged cowlick entry site in the back of the head.

Who--other than a small group in the 1970s--said it was definitively a scraped-off slice of bullet? I can't find where LNers like Moore, Posner, Savage, or Bugliosi promote such a claim.

Quack Mantik claims the Clark Panel "described an apparent 6.5 mm cross section of a bullet fragment." Wrong. The Clark Panel said the object was, in their view, metallic, "round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter". One of the first suggestions that it was a bullet shaving came from a critic, Harold Roffman, in his 1976 book "Presumed Guilty":

    "The bullet from which was shaved this substantial fragment
     upon entrance could not have been covered with a hard metal
     jacket, such as copper alloy".

Quote
But now that has all been exploded. The ARRB forensic experts debunked the cowlick entry site.

What they actually said was they could find NO entry into the skull. So that rules out an EOP entry site. The ARRB was largely staffed by those with a Conspiracy-Theorist bias, deluded by the "JFK" movie that was out a few years before. The "cowlick" entry would have to be plain-as-day for the ARRB "experts" to agree to it. Other experts, however, who were braver and had no bias, have stated there was an entry wound in the "cowlick" site.

("Cowlick" is just an expression. Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side and was not struck by a bullet. The so-called "cowlick" entry wound was at-or-near the level of the cowlick.)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 01, 2023, 03:23:06 AM
Like the WC, and the Clark panel, and even the HSCA weren’t staffed by people with a “Oswald did it” bias…
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 01, 2023, 07:10:09 PM
A few follow-up points:

-- First off, I neglected to include x-ray technician Edward Reed in the list of experts who’ve placed the 6.5 mm object in the front of the skull—specifically, just above the right supraorbital rim (i.e., just above the right eye). With Reed added to the list, that makes three experts who’ve placed the object in the front of the head vs. 27 experts who’ve placed it in the back of the head (including the Clark Panel, the HSCA medical panel, and the ARRB forensic experts).

-- The “Humes rounded up” argument will not work. A 7 x 2 mm object cannot be a circular 6.5 mm object. The 7 refers to the fragment’s length, while the 2 refers to its width. We can see on the AP x-ray that the 7 x 2 mm fragment is slightly longer than the 6.5 mm object. And, obviously, the 6.5 mm object is not 2 mm wide—it is 6.5 mm wide, since it is circular. There is no way that even a first-year medical student would have described the circular 6.5 mm object as a fragment that was 7 mm long and 2 mm wide.

-- In the autopsy report, Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed “from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex” (Autopsy report, p. 4). In his WC testimony, Humes said the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from “above and somewhat behind the President’s eye” (2 H 354).

-- Reed’s ARRB testimony is worth revisiting. Yes, Reed said that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He assumed it was a bullet fragment. However, Reed also said that he could identify the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-ray and that it is just above the right supraorbital rim on the lateral x-ray (ARRB interview transcript, 10/21/97, p. 89)! Really?!

After studying the AP and lateral skull x-rays for many hours over the course of two days, Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, saw no such object in the area of the right orbit on the lateral x-ray, nor did the two other ARRB forensic experts. Likewise, 23 other experts who’ve studied the x-rays have not seen the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital area on the lateral x-ray.

-- The tiny minority of WC apologists who argue that the 6.5 mm object is just above/in the right supraorbital ridge do not realize they are creating an atomic bomb that blows up the lone-gunman theory. How in the world could an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have deposited a 6.5 mm fragment just above and behind the right eye socket after entering the skull through either of the entry holes posited by the lone-gunman scenario?

We now know that the cowlick entry site is bogus, and most WC apologists follow Sturdivan in rejecting it. This site is nearly 4 inches higher than the site described in the autopsy report. The cowlick site was posited to explain the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-ray; this trail consists of a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region and then tails off upward toward the back of the head (although it does not actually reach the cowlick). A 6.5 mm fragment going from the cowlick entry site to the bone behind the right eyebrow would have torn a sizable cavity through the brain and would have done far more damage to the brain than we see in the extant autopsy photos of the brain.

A 6.5 mm fragment going from the EOP entry site to the bone behind the right eyebrow (i.e., the right supraorbital ridge) would have done even more damage. For that matter, as Dr. Loquvam pointed out to Finck, a bullet entering at the EOP site would have had to tear through the cerebellum, but the extant autopsy photos of the brain show no damage to the cerebellum. Plus, there is not even the semblance of a fragment trail from the EOP to the right-orbital region on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.

Dr. Riley’s main point in his article “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries” is that the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot account for the 6.5 mm object/fragment if it is indeed located in the right-orbital region and also for the brain damage that JFK suffered. Yes, Dr. Riley places the 6.5 mm object in “the right supraorbital ridge,” but then he points out that the single head shot of the lone-gunman theory cannot explain this object and the damage seen on the skull x-rays and in the autopsy photos of the brain, whether one uses the cowlick entry site or the EOP entry site:

Quote
If the fragment is embedded in the supraorbital ridge, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain how a bullet that has a trajectory almost tangential to the skull [required by the assumption that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window] could fragment extensively in the superficial brain layers, have major portions of the bullet exit (based on fragments recovered in the limousine), yet a large fragment (which retains a circular profile) deviates down to penetrate the supraorbital ridge but no fragments are distributed along the pathway.

However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.

The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .

However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.

First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration.

Second, the trajectory cannot be reconciled with the head shot shown in the Zapruder film. The HSCA conducted an extensive trajectory analysis based on the position of the head as seen in frame 312. Using the "high" entrance wound, the HSCA demonstrated that the trajectory could be aligned with "the southeast sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository" (HSCA 6:62). However, the trajectory of the occipital entrance wound differs significantly from the trajectory of the "high" entrance wound. The trajectories differ a minimum of 18 degrees in the horizontal plane and 5 degrees in the vertical plane. Even a cursory plotting of these differences in HSCA figures 11-11 and 11-12 (HSCA 6:41-42) demonstrates that the occipital entrance wound and associated subcortical wounds could not have been caused by a shot from the Texas School Book Depository corresponding to Zapruder frame 312/313.

An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, pp. 13-15, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)

So, any lone-gunman theorist who insists on believing in the placement of the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital ridge must face the fact that their version of the shooting cannot explain how their alleged single bullet to the head did the brain damage seen in the skull x-rays and also deposited the 6.5 mm object/fragment in the right-orbital ridge.

-- One of the ARRB forensic experts, Dr. Ubelaker, concluded that the photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site. Said Dr. Ubelaker,

Quote
The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph. (ARRB interview report, 1/26/96, p. 1)

Interestingly, this is exactly what the three autopsy doctors argued when the HSCA medical panel tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP entry site and to endorse the cowlick entry site.


All three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the skull x-rays contain no evidence of a cowlick entry site.

Two of the HSCA's radiological consultants, to their credit, raised issues about the cowlick entry site, but Baden ignored their observations. For those consultants to even mildly question the cowlick site was a rather surprising action. At the time of the HSCA, because of the Clark Panel's report, it was widely believed, even by some critics, that the autopsy doctors had badly mislocated the rear head entry wound, and that the wound was located in the cowlick.

-- Organ's argument that Dr. Mantik mischaracterized the Clark Panel's conclusion about the 6.5 mm object is downright idiotic. Dr. Mantik did not say that the Clark Panel said the fragment was a sheared-off fragment, if you read his statement with any care. He was making the point that for years the 6.5 mm object "described" in the Clark Panel's report was widely believed to be a sheared-off bullet fragment, hence his use of the verb "described" and the adjective "apparent." If I say you "described" an object that appears to be a fragment, I am not necessarily saying that you said it was a fragment. Saying that a third party "described" an object that "appears" to be X is frequently done as a way to indicate that the third party did not actually say the object was X. This is English 101 stuff.

In 1979, HSCA experts theorized that the 6.5 mm object was a sheared-off bullet fragment from an FMJ bullet. Dr. Lattimer made the same claim in 1972.

Until the early 2000s, every WC apologist who commented on this issue assumed that the 6.5 mm object identified by the Clark Panel was a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet. I personally had many online exchanges with WC apologists who doggedly claimed that the object had been sheared off the alleged 6.5 mm head-shot bullet as it entered the skull, and they cited the HSCA and Lattimer as support for their claim.

Thus, it is both lame and dishonest for Organ to cite Howard Roffman's 1976 critique of this absurd theory, when Organ knows, or should know, that back then everyone assumed the object was a fragment--the only issue was whether it came from an FMJ bullet or from some other kind of bullet. (By the way, Roffman's book was first published in 1975, not 1976.)

Roffman, citing authorities on wound ballistics, correctly pointed out that no FMJ bullet could have had metal scraped from it as it entered the skull, and that only a lead bullet could have deposited a sheared-off fragment on the outer table of the skull (Presumed Guilty, pp. 114-117). Many other WC critics, citing considerable forensic and wound ballistics evidence, made the same point. However, WC apologists would not admit that the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet until one of their own leading experts, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, acknowledged this fact in his 2005 book.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 04, 2023, 12:07:28 AM
Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.

Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.

Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.

The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.

The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.

For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:

Quote
ME: No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

NICKERSON: Yes it is.

ME: And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.

NICKERSON: Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg141831.html#msg141831)


The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.

For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.

Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)

How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.

And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.

Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.

Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry Sturdivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.

As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.

A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).

So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 04, 2023, 04:58:50 AM
Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.

Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.

Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.

The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.

The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.

For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:
 

The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.

For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.

Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)

How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.

And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.

Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.

Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry Sturdivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.

As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.

A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).

So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.

On New Year's Eve, you said you were done responding to me. Now, here you are throwing a whole slew of claims at me and expecting me to address each and every one, when you have thus far failed to properly address the problem of a large fragment apparently missing from the AP view. A large fragment in the forehead is visible on the lateral view. Another large fragment is seen above and behind the right eye in that lateral view. That's right where Humes said that he removed it from. Where are the forehead fragment and the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the AP view?

(https://i.imgur.com/cEV6ajd.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/6EHLrcN.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 04, 2023, 06:50:44 AM

The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.

The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.

There was no 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object.  The small fragment that McDonnel placed medial to and above the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes removed. It doesn't seem likely that a fragment would have been deposited on the outside of the skull. McDonnel erred in placing the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull. So, maybe he erred in the placement of that small fragment as well.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 04, 2023, 06:49:30 PM
More follow-up points:

-- In recent days I've gone back and re-read two papers on JFK's head wounds written by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist, and I've found a great deal of worthwhile material. I knew that Riley recognized that two bullets must have hit JFK's head, but I'd forgotten about most of his other observations and arguments.

For example, Riley thoroughly debunks the cowlick entry site, correctly noting that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex under/at the cowlick site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel claimed is an entry wound. It's worth noting that both Dr. Mantik and Dr. Artwohl have confirmed that the autopsy photos do in fact show intact cerebral cortex, and the location of this intact cerebral cortex is at the location of the cowlick entry wound.

Riley also argues that the skull x-rays contain "clear signs" of an entry wound near the EOP, close to the location described in the autopsy report. He notes, 

Quote
When a line is drawn from the original entrance wound described by Humes et al. to the fragment in the right supraorbital ridge, this line corresponds exactly to the cavitation wound. ("What Struck John: A Reinterpretation of the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Riley further argues that when objective measurements are made, the entry wound is located close to the location given by the autopsy doctors:

Quote
The impression of "cowlick" in the photograph of the entrance wound in the scalp is simply that, an impression for which there is no empirical evidence. When objective measurements (including those provided by the HSCA) are made, the scalp wound is located near where it was described initially by Humes et al. . . .

The HSCA forensics panel provided an illustration of the back of the head showing the wound in the scalp (first figure, far left) and contended that this illustrated a wound in the "cowlick" area. There are numerous problems with this contention (see Riley, 1992). The single sole objective measurement provided by the HSCA is that the wound was located 13 cm from the first prominent crease in the neck. There are numerous problems with this description (e.g., how can it be 13 cm from the base of the neck and 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance?). However, when 13 cm is measured on a scale drawing (bottom, far left; bar represents 13 cm), the scalp wound is not located even remotely close to the "high" entrance wound. When this location is compared to the X-rays, it corresponds exactly to the point identified above (bottom, far right). ("What Struck John: A Reinterpretation of the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

And, Riley goes into great detail to explain the fact that an entry wound near the EOP proves that a second bullet must have hit JFK's head. He notes that the fragments and damage in the cerebral cortex could not have been caused by a bullet that entered at the EOP entry site because the entry wound and cerebral cortex damage are not connected by any fragment trail or cavitation wound.

-- An important point to remember about the rear head entry wound is that Dr. Boswell explained that part of the entry hole was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas.

-- Only at the very end of his interview with the HSCA medical panel did Dr. Humes finally go along with the now-debunked cowlick entry site. Go read the transcript of that interview. Over and over again Humes refused to budge on the issue and insisted that the location given in the autopsy report was correct. Among other things, he pointed out that the cowlick entry site was nearly 4 inches higher than the EOP site, and he was clearly annoyed that the panel was suggesting he had made such an enormous, inexplicable error.

The two other autopsy doctors, Boswell and Finck, refused to go along with the higher entry point. Indeed, Finck even questioned how the autopsy photo of the back of the head had been authenticated!

-- Re-reading Riley's research has helped me to better understand why the plotters felt compelled to manufacture evidence that would appear to support the cowlick entry site, why the plotters felt compelled to try to discredit the EOP entry site, and why the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report had to be removed from the skull x-rays.

-- When the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in early 1967, they wrote a report about their review, and in that report they reaffirmed that the autopsy report's EOP entry point was correct. They even said that four of the autopsy photos proved this location was correct. I quote:

Quote
The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate (Attestation of Examination of Autopsy Photographs and Radiographs, 1/26/67, p. 3).

However, in a fascinating omission, the autopsy doctors did not mention the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Humes discussed this fragment trail in detail in his WC testimony (2 H 353-354). Needless to say, a fragment trail from the EOP to the right orbit would be powerful evidence that a bullet struck near the EOP and ranged upward as it fell apart. Yet, oddly enough, after reviewing the autopsy materials for five hours, the autopsy doctors said nothing about this fragment trail in their review report, even though they were clearly trying to defend their autopsy findings. So, they either inexplicably failed to mention a key piece of evidence for their claims about the head shot or that key piece of evidence was no longer on the skull x-rays. 

-- Yes, there most certainly is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. It is visible under magnification, and Dr. Chesser has confirmed this. Dr. Mantik has produced a diagram of the fragment (which includes size measurements for reference), and the fragment's metallic content has been verified by multiple OD measurements.

-- It is simply ludicrous, clownish to argue that the McDonnel fragment is the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes. The McDonnel fragment is less than 1 mm in length and width, so it's three times shorter than the 3 x 1 mm fragment. Dr. Mantik has confirmed the McDonnel fragment's existence and location with OD measurements and high-magnification analysis.

I might add that not one of the members of the HSCA medical panel disputed Dr. McDonnel's discovery of the small fragment on the back of the skull. They disputed two of the conclusions of two of the other expert consultants, but they did not dispute anything that McDonnel said about the small fragment.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 06, 2023, 01:15:13 PM
WC apologists who refuse to face the fact that there's at least one small back-of-head bullet fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays don't seem to care that no expert on either side has denied this fact. They don't want to acknowledge a back-of-head fragment because they know that such a fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet.

The fact that the autopsy x-rays show at least one small back-of-head fragment has been acknowledged by everyone from Dr. Joseph Riley to the HSCA medical panel to the Clark Panel to Dr. David O. Davis to Dr. Norman Chase to Dr. Larry Sturdivan. This is the fragment that for many years was misidentified as the lateral-view image of the 6.5 mm object. It is about 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.

-- Dr. Riley acknowledges that a small back-of-head fragment appears on the lateral x-rays. One of Riley's main reasons for arguing that the 6.5 mm object is just behind the right eyebrow is that the small back-of-head fragment does not correspond to the 6.5 mm object in density and brightness, and that therefore the small fragment and the 6.5 mm object must be two different fragments ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 9-10, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf).

It is important to keep in mind that Riley wrote his two articles on JFK's head wounds in the mid-1990s, before Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were published in the 1998 book Assassination Science. Thus, Riley, like everyone else, assumed that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment and did not realize that the object is not metallic.

-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, acknowledged that there's a small fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays. Like Riley, he noted that the fragment does not have "anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond" to the 6.5 mm object, and he therefore concluded that "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 on the lateral skull x-Rays" (ARRB meeting report, 2/6-7/96, p. 2).

-- The HSCA medical panel acknowledged that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull, 1 cm below the alleged cowlick entry site. However, they did not address the obvious disparity in density and brightness between this small fragment and the 6.5 mm object, and they incorrectly claimed that the small fragment was the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object. Everyone from Riley to Sturdivan to Mantik has taken the panel to task for making this impossible assumption. Notes Riley,

Quote
It is inexplicable that the Panel would assert that the large round fragment seen on the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray] corresponds to the fragment near the asserted entrance wound on the lateral x-ray. Comparing the frontal and lateral x-rays demonstrates that it is impossible that the images correspond to the same fragment. ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy," p. 9, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)

Anyway, the point is that the HSCA medical panel did acknowledge the presence of a small bullet fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays.

-- The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, claimed that the back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays is the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, but the Clark Panel did so in a much more oblique, passing manner (Clark Panel report, p. 11).

-- Dr. David O. Davis, one of the HSCA's radiology consultants and the chairman of the Department of Radiology at George Washington University Hospital at the time, identified a bullet fragment on the back of the skull in the lateral x-rays. He said nothing about the fragment's size, but he noted that on the lateral view it was "3-4 cm above the lambda" ("Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 8/23/78, p. 1, 7 HSCA 222).

On an important side note, Davis also noted that the high fragment trail is 6 cm above and in front of the 6.5 mm object, that the trail extends "“anteriorly from the inner table of the skull at a point approximately 6-cm. antero-superiorly [in front of and above] from the previously described embedded metallic fragment” ("Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 8/23/78, p. 2, 7 HSCA 223).

-- Dr. Norman Chase, another one of the HSCA's radiology consultants and a radiologist at the New York University Medical Center at the time, acknowledged that the lateral x-rays show a bullet fragment, and he concluded that it was the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Using the AP x-ray as his starting point, Chase stated that "the large metal fragment prominent in the x-ray . . . corresponds to the metal fragment in the rear of the head as evidenced on the lateral view" ("Outside Contact Report," 2/27/78, pp. 1-2, 7 HSCA 281-282, emphasis added).

-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who served as a wound ballistics consultant for the HSCA, treats the small back-of-head fragment in a curious manner. In commenting on the HSCA medical panel's findings, he correctly notes that this fragment cannot be the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment:

Quote
The frontal x-ray of the head . . . shows a nearly circular density near the higher entry site that the panel identified as a bullet fragment deposited on the skull at entry. It appears to be a disk of something as dense as metal, with a small circular "bite" taken out of the lower edge. . . . This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP [the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, aka the HSCA medical panel] and is mentioned by Dr. Baden [chairman of the panel] as a "relatively large metal fragment". . . . It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC [FMJ] bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. In the Biophysics Lab tests, most of the test bullets' jackets ruptured about midway through the skulls. . . .

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out, . . there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on [from the side/sideways]. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray], it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the President's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the JFK Assassination, 2005, pp. 184-185)

Now, why is Sturdivan so vague about the small back-of-head fragment? He does not deny its existence. But, he never calls it a fragment. He calls it "the slightly lighter area." He admits that the HSCA medical panel identified it as the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, and does not dispute the panel's identification and placement of the fragment. However, he does not go beyond observing that the fragment cannot be the lateral image of the 6.5 mm object or of a metal disk. Why the apparent vagueness? Because he has just acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not fragment on the outside of the skull, so he knows that this fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet. I suspect this is also why he says nothing about the McDonnel fragment.

-- Dr. Mantik points out that the small back-of-head fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24).

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery.

-- We should remember the fact that the small back-of-head fragment and the 6.5 mm object are at the same vertical level, since the small fragment is actually inside the 6.5 mm object when viewed on the AP x-ray. Nobody knew that the small fragment is visible inside the 6.5 mm object under high magnification until Dr. Mantik discovered this (and confirmed its existence with OD measurements). Placing the small fragment inside the 6.5 mm object ensured that the two objects would align vertically. This is important because if the 6.5 mm object were higher or lower than where it is now, it would not align vertically with the small fragment, and nobody would have ever identified the small fragment as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and the forgery of the 6.5 mm object would have been obvious. Dr. Mantik explains this point further:

Quote
On the AP X-ray, the authentic metal fragment lay at the anatomic right side of the 6.5 mm object, but it was located entirely inside of the 6.5 mm object. In fact, it appeared that the darkroom worker had positioned his double-exposed 6.5 mm image to precisely match the (anatomic) right border of the authentic metal fragment. Furthermore, by doing so, he had guaranteed that the 6.5 mm image would not be left without a partner image on the lateral X-ray. On the other hand, if he had not matched the 6.5 mm image to an authentic metal fragment, the 6.5 mm object would have had no partner image on the lateral X-ray, and the forgery would have been obvious. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 24-25)

This vertical alignment was part of the reason that so many experts erroneously concluded that the two images were the same fragment. For example, the HSCA medical panel noted that the AP x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be "in approximately the same vertical plane as in the above-described lateral view" (7 HSCA 109).

The forgery of the 6.5 mm object was not perfect, but it was good enough to fool every expert who examined the x-rays for over three decades. The forgers should have created an object on the lateral x-rays that matched the 6.5 mm object in size, density, and brightness, but this would have required a more complicated double-exposure than the 6.5 mm object, and they may have assumed that placing the 6.5 mm object over the image of the small back-of-head fragment would suffice (it did for over three decades). Plus, the science of optical density analysis of x-rays was barely in its infancy in 1963, so the forgers had no idea that one day a radiation oncologist who also happened to be a physicist would detect their forgery with OD analysis.

-- Obviously, the small back-of-head fragment misidentified as the lateral image of the 6.5 mm object is not the McDonnel fragment. The McDonnel fragment is about 5 cm above the lambda, "lies medial" to "the depressed fracture in the right occipital bone," and is "between the galea and the outer table of the skull" ("Report of G.M. McDonnel," 8/4/78, p. 2, 7 HSCA 218), whereas the other fragment is 3-4 cm above the lambda on the lateral view, is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline on the AP x-ray, is 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site, and is on the outer table of the skull.

The McDonnel fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet and could only be a ricochet fragment. Similarly, the small fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site could not have come from an FMJ bullet and could only be a ricochet fragment. These facts prove that more than one gunman fired at JFK.









Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 12, 2023, 10:06:34 AM
Well, I see that WC apologists have fallen silent in this thread, because they have no credible explanation for the evidence being presented.

In any case, while re-reading the HSCA medical panel’s report, I discovered—and then remembered!—that the panel not only cited the McDonnel fragment but invoked it as evidence for the cowlick entry site:

Quote
In March 1978 Dr. McDonnel of Los Angeles examined the skull films for the panel and reported:

". . . There is elevation of the galea medial and lateral to the area of the fracture and metallic fragment in the occipital region [the 6.5 mm object]. A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment and fracture between the galea lying and the outer cranial table."

Such separation of the galea from the outer skull bones often occurs as a result of the dislocation of adjacent bone fragments and is seen in an explosive-type injury to the skull. The location of the metallic fragment inside the galea medial to the defect in the skull representing the initial penetration suggests that this separation commenced on initial impact allowing the tiny above-described missile fragment to be displaced medially within this space created by explosion (between the skull and its overlying galea). (7 HSCA 131-132)

Of course, at least some of the medical panel members should have known that FMJ bullets do not shed fragments when they enter skulls, as their own wound ballistics consultant, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, later pointed out, and as many other forensic and wound ballistics experts observed before Sturdivan made his views known. Moreover, the panel had no good explanation for why the fragment is at least 1 cm from the supposed entry point.

Anyway, the main point is that the HSCA medical panel acknowledged the McDonnel fragment and its location. That fragment could only be a ricochet fragment.

Actually, in theory, the McDonnel fragment could be a fragment from the impact of a frangible bullet. However, there is no entry wound at the fragment's location, and the alleged cowlick entry site 1 cm away has no cavitation wound ("cylinder of disruption" or "wound tunnel") proceeding from it; plus, the lone-gunman theory says that a single FMJ bullet struck JFK's head, not a frangible bullet.

It is interesting that the HSCA medical panel sought to explain the separation of the galea from the outer table by assuming "an explosive-type injury to the skull." High-velocity frangible bullets create "explosive-type" injuries, since they typically explode on impact, whereas low-velocity FMJ bullets do not, and the lone-gunman theory says that the alleged lone gunman used FMJ ammo and a low-velocity rifle.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 12, 2023, 10:57:55 PM
WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
....
Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.
The "flakes" are not sliced off the bullet. I don't see why they could not be bullet lead.

I am sure you knew this, but it is important to understand the physics of a bullet impact on the bullet itself.
When a bullet nose hits a hard target, the nose of the bullet stops or slows significantly but the rest of the bullet keeps going as the copper jacket cannot apply sufficient force to stop it.  This causes the bullet jacket to crumple and rupture and the bullet lead to compress.  The mechanical work performed by the bullet on itself in compressing the lead adds energy to the lead and can cause the temperature of the lead to exceed its melting point.  So when the jacket ruptures, some liquid lead sprays into the surroundings, in this case the brain. The liquid lead then strikes matter in the brain that it cannot penetrate and it flattens out.   There were many of these flattened specks of lead throughout the brain and in JBC's wrist wound.  This particular fragment just happens to be the largest.

Quote
In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:
Sturdivan thought it might be an artifact in the film, which also makes no sense because it is seen on both views.  I don't see where he considered that it was bullet lead. 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 13, 2023, 02:11:16 AM

. . .
Sturdivan thought it might be an artifact in the film, which also makes no sense because it is seen on both views.  I don't see where he considered that it was bullet lead.

Here is Sturdivan's quote from his book "The JFK Myths", Chapter Ten (Bungled Autopsy), Page 193:

Quote
The projectile would only break into disks is a person were shot by something like a roll of coins. When the break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, somethings complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of the object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal s-ay, it should be even brighter when seen edge on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president's skull or scalp.

A metal fragment that cannot be a bullet fragment and appears on only one view of the x-ray would ordinarily be dismissed as an accidental artifact that somehow found its way to the top of the x-ray cassette, for that single exposure. It isn't unusual to see things fall out of the clothing or hair, especially on the tables in the Medical Examiner's Laboratory. Object such as metal buttons would easily cast a shadow on an x-ray. . . .

In his book, Sturdivan has a picture of the frontal x-ray.

Question: Does anyone have pictures of both x-rays of the skull, one from the front and one from the side?

In any case, Sturdivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays. Hence, it must be an artifact. But we can decide for ourselves, if we can see both x-rays.



By the way, I wonder how old Fetzer is doing these days. I wonder if he consults with Alex Jones on how to hide his wealth from the Sandy Hook parents.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 13, 2023, 09:01:49 AM


Question: Does anyone have pictures of both x-rays of the skull, one from the front and one from the side?

In any case, Sturdivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays. Hence, it must be an artifact. But we can decide for ourselves, if we can see both x-rays.

(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/6EHLrcN.jpg)

It's not an artifact, and it's not on the back of the skull. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 13, 2023, 04:44:50 PM
Here is Sturdivan's quote from his book "The JFK Myths", Chapter Ten (Bungled Autopsy), Page 193:
I was referring to Sturdivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":

Quote
In any case, Sturdivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays.
Maybe not when he wrote his book.  He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 13, 2023, 05:40:42 PM
Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/b9/vXHqkElq_o.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 13, 2023, 06:03:54 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/0LPwnVe.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/6EHLrcN.jpg)

It's not an artifact, and it's not on the back of the skull. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye.

That lateral X-ray helps a lot. Thank you.

Question:

Do we have regular photographs of the fragment that Humes removed?

Preferably from different angles?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 13, 2023, 06:09:29 PM

Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/b9/vXHqkElq_o.jpg)

I take it that we just have the one view of the actual fragment?

I think this play-do model looks about right. The "round" object wasn't really all that round.

Sturdivan was mistaken about this just being an artifact. But I don't think it was a disk like object as is generally interpreted. It was just an irregularly shaped fragment. So it appears to be much ado about nothing.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 14, 2023, 12:40:35 AM


https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 14, 2023, 04:01:31 PM


https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays

An interesting article by Pat Speer. It is a complex subject.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 14, 2023, 04:06:06 PM
Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/b9/vXHqkElq_o.jpg)

Just to ask again, are these the only images we have of the 7x2 mm fragment, this gray object below the orange play-doh model in both the left and right photos?

Unless I see this fragment from other angles that proves otherwise, I think this fragment is the object visible in the two X-rays of JFK, from the front and the side.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 14, 2023, 04:25:01 PM

I was referring to Sturdivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":

  • "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).  " [as quoted in Mantik's 2015 article "The John F. Kennedy Autopsy x-Rays: The Sage of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"
Maybe not when he wrote his book.  He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.

While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise. I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.

I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.

Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.

Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 16, 2023, 08:42:22 PM
While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise.
It is not an artifact if it is seen on both views.

Quote
I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.
The objection seems to be its roundness over about 3/4 of the fragment.  That is what naturally happens when a molten drop of lead impacts a larger object or surface.

Quote
I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.

Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.

Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.
It is not hard to find someone who knows how to read medical x-rays. I am always amazed at how dentists see things in dental x-rays.

Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets.  But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial. 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 16, 2023, 11:16:58 PM

. . .

Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets.  But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial.

Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 18, 2023, 10:34:32 PM
I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

This is just silly. If you see no reason that the 7 x 2 mm fragment recovered during the autopsy cannot be the 6.5 mm object, then you haven't read my previous replies in this thread. Again, among other facts, the two objects are plainly visible on the AP x-ray. One is not the other. I mean, how can anyone be confused about this? You can see both objects on the AP x-ray, and they are not what you would call "close" to each other, so obviously the 7 x 2 mm fragment is not the 6.5 mm object. The two objects also have very different OD measurements.

The evidence that the object is an artifact is indisputable. This has been established by dozens of OD measurements, not to mention that forensic science knows of no FMJ bullet that has left a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entering the skull. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible.

Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.

You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 19, 2023, 12:47:08 AM
You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

Dolce was only engaged in a single meeting involving the Edgewood staff. In this case Dolce joined Light and Olivier to discuss Governor Connally's wounds with the Connallys, Gregory, Shaw, and Shires. He wasn't involved in the earlier April 14, 1964 meeting between Humes. Boswell, Finck, Olivier and Light. Nor is he listed as an author or even contributor in the Edgewood report detailing the tests.  He doesn't seem to have been the top expert that you think he is, otherwise his name would have popped up more often. He's also wrong. He chides Olivier and Dziemian for accepting Gregory's dorsal-to-volar path through the wrist, but Gregory was correct. Dolce claimed that Gregory had "no wound ballistic experience," when Gregory had served as a surgeon for the 1st Marine Division in Korea, and of course gained GSW experience working at Parkland.  Dolce assumed that the wrist tests conducted by Edgewood covered all cases where a Carcano bullet truck a radius bone, but this is simply impossible. In fact, the Edgewood wrist tests are completely irrelevant to the SBT as far as any expected deformation is concerned. 

For that matter, Roger McCarthy is also not a "ballistics expert." He's a mechanical engineer whose actual forte appears to be business and management. For the ABA mock trial, the company he led, Failure Analysis, had to hire a recognized ballistic expert to run their shooting tests. That expert was Dr Martin Fackler, who was widely considered at the time to be the leading expert in the field of terminal ballistics of flesh, bullet, and bone. Fackler came out of these tests concluding that CE399 could indeed be responsible for all of the wounds attributed by the WC.


No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

And here's someone else who thinks that they can achieve though adjectives what they cannot manage through evidence and/or argument.


The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.

Luke Haag actually is recognized to be an expert in terminal ballistics and shooting reconstruction, both in academia and in the courts.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 19, 2023, 03:47:56 AM

You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

Dr. Joseph Dolce was a ballistic expert? That is a joke.

Dr. Joseph Dolce. What was he doctor of? Physics? Chemistry? No. He was a doctor. A medical doctor. Medical doctors are not ballistic experts. His connection to the Edgewood Arsenal? He was a consultant to the Biophysics Division of the Edgewood Arsenal. Not a ballistic expert. Just a consultant, based on his knowledge of medicine.

Question: Was Dr. Joseph Dolce a medical doctor?

Question: Are medical doctors also ballistic experts?

No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

Any ballistic test that supports the SBT, is automatically considered "Rigged" by you.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. Oh my God! Someone should have warned the California Association of Criminalists.

Below is a video of Luke Haag giving a lecture for the California Association of Criminalists:


And below is a website explaining what the California Association of Criminalists is:

https://www.cacnews.org/membership/purpose.shtml

But, I guess you would know better than the California Association of Criminalists about who they should invite to give a lecture.

Luke Haag was a forensic scientist at Forensic Science Services and former technical director of the Phoenix Crime Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. And a true ballistic expert.

Give me a quote from a real ballistic expert that says that Luke Haas is not a ballistic expert. Who do you have who can support your claim?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 19, 2023, 12:21:41 PM
Dr. Joseph Dolce was a ballistic expert? That is a joke.

Dr. Joseph Dolce. What was he doctor of? Physics? Chemistry? No. He was a doctor. A medical doctor. Medical doctors are not ballistic experts. His connection to the Edgewood Arsenal? He was a consultant to the Biophysics Division of the Edgewood Arsenal. Not a ballistic expert. Just a consultant, based on his knowledge of medicine.

Question: Was Dr. Joseph Dolce a medical doctor?

Question: Are medical doctors also ballistic experts?

Any ballistic test that supports the SBT, is automatically considered "Rigged" by you.

This is another example of the fact that you post the same falsehoods over and over again. You post your falsehoods, then someone refutes them, then you fall silent, but then you post them again when the same subject is discussed a few weeks or months later.

Allow me to quote from some exchanges I have had with you regarding Dr. Dolce:

----------------------BEGIN-------------------------------

Again, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a medical doctor who consults with ballistic experts but was not a ballistic expert himself, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.

Where did you get this nonsense? Of course, ever since you guys found out that Dr. Dolce rejected the SBT, you have minimized his credentials. So let's look at his credentials:

In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. After he retired from the Army, he became chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the Warren Commission (WC) asked the Army to provide its top wound ballistics expert as a consultant, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than Olivier and Dziemian did.

And let’s talk about Dr. Joseph Dolce a little bit. We can see what he wrote in a letter below. Search for the word “Dolce” the eight of nine occurrences will see the start a letter he wrote with the title:

Uh, I mentioned Dr. Dolce's letter a couple of weeks ago. I guess you missed that.

My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination By Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, MD FACS

http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests#dolce-letter

As you alluded to, Dr. Joseph Dolce’s professional opinion is that two bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could not have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. But there is something else he says, that three bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Dr. Joseph Dolce was not a CTer but a LNer who believed that the evidence best supported the theory that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. But not with two bullets from Oswald rifle, but with three.

Again, you saw fit to without pertinent information from us. A habit of yours which, perhaps, you are not consciously aware of.

So, what you really want us to do, is accept Dr. Dolce’s professional opinion. That two WCC/MC bullets could not have done this. But to reject his equally professional opinion that three WCC/MC bullets could. You want to cherry pick which of his conclusions are correct and which are to be rejected.

Like any CTer, you need multiple shooters, or if forced to go with one shooter, it has to be anyone but Oswald, using his Carcano rifle. Hence, the cherry picking of which of Dr. Dolce’s opinions is correct.

Let's peel through this dishonest spin and sophistry. Dr. Dolce's findings and conclusions about the SBT are all the more devastating precisely because Dolce, since he focused only on the wound ballistics of the shooting, did not realize that the lone-gunman theory cannot allow that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets and that Connally's wrist was struck by a fragment from the JFK head shot. He was not immersed in the details of the rest of the JFK case, so he did not realize that his findings and conclusions were fatal for the lone-gunman theory, and that this was why the WC ignored him.

If Dr. Dolce had rejected both the SBT and the lone-gunman theory, you guys would hold this against him and would claim that as a conspiracy theorist he was biased and was trying to prove what he wanted to believe. The fact that he still believed that Oswald was the only gunman and that only three shots were fired makes his ardent, science-based rejection of the SBT all the more compelling and devastating.

Dr. Dolce was unaware of the scientific evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination. He did not know that the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek had been subjected to NAA at the Atomic Energy Commission's Oak Ridge facility, and that experiments done at Oak Ridge found that every single time one of the participants fired a bolt-action rifle, their paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates--every single time. He did not know this because the FBI withheld this information from the WC.

What is my opinion of the 1964 Edgewood tests? That they were insufficient to conclude that the two bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that the three bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that both WCC/MC theories are incorrect and that some other theory must be true.

They fired a WCC/MC bullet directly into the wrist of a human cadaver. This is an invalid test. Nothing was done to slow the bullet with soft tissue, or the equivalent, like ballistic gel, to simulate Kennedy’s Neck and Connally’s torso, to see if the bullet could do something like the same amount of damage to Connally’s wrist, while the bullet remained only moderately distorted. Of course, firing directly into the wrist, without slowing it down first, resulted in much greater damage than the damage done to Connally’s wrist, and the bullet receiving much more damage to it than CE 399.

More dishonesty, or a severe lack of knowledge, about CE 399. First off, CE 399 is not "moderately distorted." That is hogwash. Even its lands and grooves are intact. Do you understand what that means? CE 399 also lost virtually none of its substance, no more than 3-4 grains Do you know how small and light 3-4 grains are?

You are ignoring the fact that in Dr. Dolce's tests, even some of the bullets that were merely fired through simulated soft tissue emerged more deformed than CE 399, and that every single bullet that was fired into rib bone emerged markedly deformed.

----------------------END-------------------------------
And:
----------------------BEGIN-----------------------------

The Warren Commission’s (WC’s) most qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, conducted ballistics tests that refuted the SBT, but the commission simply ignored the tests. In a 1986 interview, Dr. Dolce said,

“The disturbing feature at this conference [with Arlen Specter and others] was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed’. . . . They wanted this to be the bullet that caused all of the damage, and I did not go along with that.”

The results of Dr. Dolce’s wound ballistics tests were revealing—and devastating to the SBT. 10 bullets were fired into the wrists of human cadavers; one bullet was fired into a goat’s rib; and one bullet was fired into a block of gelatin.

Of the 10 bullets fired into cadaver wrists, the WC was only willing to include pictures of four of them in its report: all four bullets emerged substantially more deformed than CE 399 (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=35). And keep in mind that these bullets did not smash through several inches of rib before hitting the wrists.

The bullet that was fired into a goat’s rib emerged much more flattened than CE 399 (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=43).

The bullet that was fired into a gelatin block emerged looking a lot like CE 399 (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=43). 

There was a reason that Dr. Michael Baden, chairman of the HSCA medical panel, refused Dr. Cyril Wecht’s request that the panel arrange for a wound ballistics test to be done to determine if an FMJ bullet like CE 399 could do all the damage claimed by the SBT and still emerge looking like CE 399.

In 1992, All-American Television arranged for a wound ballistics test. A 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into a gelatin block with two chicken bones positioned several inches apart inside it. The bullet emerged markedly deformed, far more deformed than CE 399.

-------------------------END-------------------------------
On the Haags and wound ballistics tests:
-----------------------BEGIN-------------------------------

Since 1964, better ballistic tests have been run to show that a WCC/MC bullet could do the damage it did and still emerge being only moderately distorted.

No, they have not. I hope you're not talking about Lattimer's test or the Haags' test. If you are, neither of those tests duplicated the single-bullet theory and CE 399's virtually pristine end state. Lattimer's test has already been destroyed many times. The Haags came on the scene a few years ago. When it comes to the JFK case, they are quacks who have clearly failed to do their homework. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the Haags' research:[/size]

Quote
To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)

More reading on the Haags' junk science:

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

In the 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test, conducted in consultation with forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht, the test bullet emerged markedly deformed. The bullet penetrated a gelatin block, then damaged one bone, and then damaged another bone. It emerged markedly, visibly deformed.

In the 1967 CBS wound ballistics tests, all four of the bullets failed to penetrate the equivalent of the thigh. This led the supervising expert, Dr. W. F. Enos, to conclude that the SBT was "highly improbable."

--------------------------END-------------------------------

Finally, allow me to note that this thread is about the inability of LNers to explain the two back-of-head fragments, not the SBT. I notice that you made no effort to reply to my debunking of your embarrassing statement that you saw no reason that the 6.5 mm object could not be the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed during the autopsy. Let's repeat some basic facts on this matter:

-- The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round, except for a neat semi-circular slice from its left edge (viewer's right), whereas the 7 x 2 mm fragment looks nothing like this but is a 7 mm long and 2 mm wide and curves to the left in its upper quarter.

-- The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are both plainly, clearly visible on the AP x-ray.

-- The 7 x 2 mm fragment is visible on the AP x-ray and on the lateral x-ray, whereas the 6.5 mm object is only visible on the AP x-ray, which is a physical impossibility unless the object is an artifact on the AP x-ray.

-- The 6.5 mm object's OD measurements are drastically different from the 7 x 2 mm fragment's OD measurements.

Not only do WC apologists have no rational explanation for the presence of the two back-of-head fragments, but they also cannot explain how two alleged FMJ "sheared-off" fragments magically moved and ended up at least 1 cm from their alleged entry hole, and even ended up in different layers of the skull. If this were any normal case, such fantasy would be laughed to scorn.

It's interesting that the HSCA medical panel tacitly admitted they were on shaky ground in claiming that the 6.5 mm object was a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet. The panel said that it was "rare" but "possible" for an FMJ bullet to shear off fragments as it entered a skull. However, the panel did not cite a single example of an FMJ bullet doing this. As I've noted before, the HSCA own wound ballistics consultant, Dr. Sturdivan, later admitted that it's impossible, that FMJ bullets simply do not shear off fragments when they strike skulls.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 19, 2023, 04:41:20 PM
Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.
It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.

I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 20, 2023, 12:32:53 AM
It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
  • “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman (1964)

I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.

As noted, Fackler worked with FaAA for the ABA mock trial in the early 1990's. He thought CE399 could have inflicted the wounds attributed to it by the WC and come out looking as it did. Lucien Haag is also considered to be an expert in terminal and wound ballistics both by the courts and in academia.

As for tests, the impact and deformation dynamics involved in a bullet's impact are multivariable and nonlinear. And that's just for one impact. Chaining together several successive impacts increases the variability by orders of magnitude. Given these circumstances, it's silly to think that one or even a handful of test shots will allow you to determine all possible outcomes. Dozens, scores, or even hundreds of tests would be required to really give us a good idea as to what's possible and what's not. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.   
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 20, 2023, 02:51:42 AM

This is another example of the fact that you post the same falsehoods over and over again. You post your falsehoods, then someone refutes them, then you fall silent, but then you post them

In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims.

In WW II, Dr. John Lattimer was a battlefield surgeon in Europe. He dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims.

Why shouldn't we go with Dr. John Lattimer's opinion about CE-399 instead of Dr. Dolce?

The truth is, Dr. Dolce was a medical doctor, and in no way a ballistic expert. And I hold this opinion not because he rejects CE-399.
The truth is, Dr. John Lattimer was a medical doctor, and again in no way a ballistic expert. I don't care if he accepts CE-399.

Although, I believe Dr. John Lattimer conducted some reasonably well thought out and scientfic ballistic experiments. But he was definitely, an amateur ballistic experimenter. You have presented no evidence that Dr. Dolce was even that much. Just his fancy title.

It doesn't matter what title the army gives Dr. Dolce. "Chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistic Board". "Supreme Inspector of All Army Latrines". He was not a ballistic expert. He never conducted any expertiments with firearms with ballistic gel. He has no experience in conducting systematic ballistic experiments to see under what circumstances a bullet may end up with minimum damage, moderate damage, major damage or even fragment.


And where is your evidence that Luke Haag was not a ballistic expert?
Why should your opinion carry more weight than than the California Association of Criminalists?

No, they have not. I hope you're not talking about Lattimer's test or the Haags' test. If you are, neither of those tests duplicated the single-bullet theory and CE 399's virtually pristine end state. Lattimer's test has already been destroyed many times. The Haags came on the scene a few years ago. When it comes to the JFK case, they are quacks who have clearly failed to do their homework. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the Haags' research:

Oh. And is Dr. Gary Aguilar a ballistic expert? No, just another medical doctor.

When are you going to surprise me bring up someone, let's say, associated with the California Association of Criminalists who supports your postion? And not another damm doctor who can treat a patient but has no clue about what condition a bullet may be found in after striking some human beings?

Find me a real ballistic expert who discredits Mr. Luke Haag.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 20, 2023, 03:15:37 AM

It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
  • “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman (1964)

I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.

The Nova JFK COld Case video can be seen below:

https://aguilarforensics.weebly.com/firearms--tool-marks/nova-jfk-cold-case-full-video

At 34:39, Luke Haag shows how a bullet can be squeezed to resemble CE-399.
At 35:20, Luke Haag states that there is no reason not to conclude that the SBT as proposed by Specter was incorrect.

So Luke Haag agrees with Larry Sturdivan.

So, I make it at 2 to 0.

Can anyone come up with a real ballistic expert who disagrees? After almost 60 years, not one?

 * * * * *

And I recall a Discovery Channel, from about 15 years ago, that had ballistic gel models of JFK and Connally, with embedded ribs and an array of wrist bones, that produced a bullet that was not greatly dissimilar to CE-399. Bent in two places (not one like CE-399) because it went through two "ribs", not one. But reasonably close.

I don't recall if this experiment was conducted by ballistic experts but it looked pretty reasonable to me. So I don't think one can say that no one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet at 2,000 fps and ended up with anything resembling CE-399.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on January 20, 2023, 03:05:02 PM
The Nova JFK COld Case video can be seen below:

https://aguilarforensics.weebly.com/firearms--tool-marks/nova-jfk-cold-case-full-video

At 34:39, Luke Haag shows how a bullet can be squeezed to resemble CE-399.
At 35:20, Luke Haag states that there is no reason not to conclude that the SBT as proposed by Specter was incorrect.

So Luke Haag agrees with Larry Sturdivan.

So, I make it at 2 to 0.

Can anyone come up with a real ballistic expert who disagrees? After almost 60 years, not one?

 * * * * *

And I recall a Discovery Channel, from about 15 years ago, that had ballistic gel models of JFK and Connally, with embedded ribs and an array of wrist bones, that produced a bullet that was not greatly dissimilar to CE-399. Bent in two places (not one like CE-399) because it went through two "ribs", not one. But reasonably close.

I don't recall if this experiment was conducted by ballistic experts but it looked pretty reasonable to me. So I don't think one can say that no one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet at 2,000 fps and ended up with anything resembling CE-399.
I believe the Discovery Channel special was "Inside the Target Car"? But they only simulated the/a head shot not the back shot. Unless you're thinking of another one? I too vaguely recall another special in addition to the NOVA show duplicating something you mentioned with #399. Either both of us are losing it or neither one of us is. Let's agree to go with the latter explanation.

That "Target Car" can be viewed here: https://archive.org/details/JFKInsideTheTargetCar
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 20, 2023, 05:11:48 PM
I believe the Discovery Channel special was "Inside the Target Car"? But they only simulated the/a head shot not the back shot. Unless you're thinking of another one? I too vaguely recall another special in addition to the NOVA show duplicating something you mentioned with #399. Either both of us are losing it or neither one of us is. Let's agree to go with the latter explanation.

That "Target Car" can be viewed here: https://archive.org/details/JFKInsideTheTargetCar

You may be thinking of the November 2004 Discovery Channel episode of "Unsolved History" called "JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet". The same program gave us "JFK: Death in Dealey Plaza" (2003; timeline of the photographers), "Robert F. Kennedy Assassination" (2004), "JFK: The Conspiracy Myths" (2004) and "JFK: The Ruby Connection" (2005). One site lists "JFK: Inside the Target Car" as part of the "Unsolved History" series but that show came out in 2008, after the series ended.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCSJBpkip9I/AAAAAAAAEaI/DZaqiArxuzE/s400/SBT+Test+Bullet.jpg)

See David Von Pein's review of "JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet" ( Link (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html) ). "The closest we're likely to ever get to a perfect duplication of the Single-Bullet Theory".

The rifleman didn't have the luxury of a large target. He was on a lift exposed to wind and at a comparable distance. It's remarkable he came so close to where the "back wound" was.

(http://tnesystems.com/disc_jfk3.jpg)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=17ek8ENh-VHGpBNaK77KvwIeiuoh_7U9-)

The minor spread meant the bullet emerged from the simulated "body's" chest. Not a great concern as the "Kennedy" surrogate (unlike the "Connally" surrogate) had no hard tissue embedded in it. Unfortunately, critics expect some mirco-level precision with living models.

There was a test done by Failure Analysis Associates for the ABA Convention's August 1992 "mock trial" of Oswald, in which a short-loaded Carcano bullet was used. They fired a Carcano bullet with a lowered velocity of 1100 feet-per-second into a cadaver's wrist. Why weaken the velocity?

Dr. Michael Baden said: "That bullet [CE399] slowed in velocity each time it traversed another body part. there was a debate on our panel as to whether the bullet even hit Connally's rib or just passed close enough to do the damage. But most of of us thought it hit the rib while tumbling, and a sideways hit explains why such a hard bullet is flattened. When it struck the wrist bone, which is small, it was not deformed, since its velocity was so low. By time it left the wrist, its speed was greatly reduced, and the nature of his thigh wound shows it was a spent bullet by then."

This context is important but usually ignored by CTs. Dr. Martin Fackler, then president of the International Wound Ballistics Association, participated in the FAA weak-round tests. He said: "The bullet actually made a slightly greater hole than the one in Governor's Connally's wrist. That's because the experiment bullet was actually going a little faster than the 900 feet that CE 399 was traveling. the test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE 399". Sorry, I don't have any more information of this test than this.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_85.jpg)

BTW, not much of a hole in Connally's radius bone. The bullet slapped off the bone and left behind a series of fractures that were reset in surgery. There were no bone grafts.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 20, 2023, 06:27:41 PM
The Nova JFK COld Case video can be seen below:

https://aguilarforensics.weebly.com/firearms--tool-marks/nova-jfk-cold-case-full-video

At 34:39, Luke Haag shows how a bullet can be squeezed to resemble CE-399.
At 35:20, Luke Haag states that there is no reason not to conclude that the SBT as proposed by Specter was incorrect.

So Luke Haag agrees with Larry Sturdivan.
What is required is a ballistics expert who understands the forces applied to a bullet in contacting different target materials at different speeds and different orientations and who has a thorough understanding of physics and strength of materials and can relate that to the actual physical damage that occurred. Sturdivan appears to qualify as such an expert but not the Haags. The only expert who has provided any of that kind of analysis is Sturdivan and I see a number of inconsistencies with his analysis.

It is not difficult to accept that CE399 is consistent with having passed through JFK's neck. The question is whether:

Sturdivan does not explain each step in terms of the force that the bullet would experience in each of those impacts in order to create the damage observed.  For example, he does not identify the pressure required to fracture the radius as it did and relate that to the speed of the bullet and whether at that speed, the bullet would deform if hit nose-on or sideways etc.   He avoids it entirely.  Not only did this bullet fracture the radius, which is the hardest bone in the body, causing a large irregular entry hole in the cuff and leaving flecks of lead in the wound, it did this after obliterating 10 cm of rib.

Quote
And I recall a Discovery Channel, from about 15 years ago, that had ballistic gel models of JFK and Connally, with embedded ribs and an array of wrist bones, that produced a bullet that was not greatly dissimilar to CE-399. Bent in two places (not one like CE-399) because it went through two "ribs", not one. But reasonably close.
But did not fracture a radius bone, if I recall correctly.

Quote
I don't recall if this experiment was conducted by ballistic experts but it looked pretty reasonable to me. So I don't think one can say that no one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet at 2,000 fps and ended up with anything resembling CE-399.
I can.  No one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet from a Carcano, doing the damage done to the rib and radius of JBC, and having the characteristics remotely similar to those on JBC's wounds and clothing and looking anything like CE399.

And that is entirely apart from the fact that the evidence from the people who were there who said that JFK and JBC were hit by separate bullets.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 20, 2023, 09:44:51 PM
Is it really sufficient to argue that CE399 could possibly have gone through both men and caused all those wounds if there is no evidence that it did?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 21, 2023, 02:51:49 AM

I believe the Discovery Channel special was "Inside the Target Car"? But they only simulated the/a head shot not the back shot. Unless you're thinking of another one? I too vaguely recall another special in addition to the NOVA show duplicating something you mentioned with #399. Either both of us are losing it or neither one of us is. Let's agree to go with the latter explanation.

That "Target Car" can be viewed here: https://archive.org/details/JFKInsideTheTargetCar

It was another show. I don't remember the name of it. The Discovery Channel had three different one to two hour shows on the assassination, something like ones made in 2003, 2007 and 2008, as I recall.

The show I am think of, they used two "torsos", of ballistic gel, one modeled after JFK's torso and another after Connally's. These "torsos" had to be kept refrigerated to simulate a human body (for some reason I do not know). So they only had a few minutes to fire the shot once the models were carefully positioned. In addition, they had a third target, an array of bones meant to simulate Connally's wrist. And a fourth target, of just ballistic gel, meant to simulate Connally's thigh, and to capture the bullet itself.

They were firing from a tower they constructed themselves, that was moving some because the wind picked up.

The result was the bullet when through the first three targets but did not embed itself in the forth target, the "Connally thigh". Instead it bounced off. But the bullet resembled CE-399. It was a bit more bent. And had two indentations in it's side, instead of just one like CE 399. This was because as the bullet travelled sideways through the Connally "torso", it went through two ribs instead of one.

I do not recall the tests being supervised by real ballistic experts, like the equivalent of a Luke Haag or a Michael Haag. But it did appear to be a good experiment.

I hope this triggers your memory of that TV show.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 21, 2023, 03:01:22 AM

What is required is a ballistics expert who understands the forces applied to a bullet in contacting different target materials at different speeds and different orientations and who has a thorough understanding of physics and strength of materials and can relate that to the actual physical damage that occurred. Sturdivan appears to qualify as such an expert but not the Haags. The only expert who has provided any of that kind of analysis is Sturdivan and I see a number of inconsistencies with his analysis.

Ok. Sturdivan appears to qualify as such an expert, but not the Haags. I don't see why the Haags don't appear to be, but ok.

Then who is the ballistic expert who disagrees with Larry Sturdivan as far as CE-399 is concerned?

You disagree with Larry Sturdivan, but you are not a ballistic expert. Many others disagree with Larry Sturdivan, but they aren't ballistic experts either. So who is? Who "appears" to be an ballistic expert, like Larry Sturdivan, but who also thinks the CE-399 could not have wounded JFK and Connally?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 21, 2023, 03:14:41 AM


It is not difficult to accept that CE399 is consistent with having passed through JFK's neck. The question is whether:
  • it entered JBC to the right of his right scapula and struck the fifth rib creating a tunneling wound
  • then pulverized the last 10 cm of that rib,
  • then exited just under his right nipple,
  • then passed through his jacket sleeve and french cuff causing a longish jagged tear in the cuff in only one location about 1 inch above the end of the cuff,
  • then struck the distal fourth of the radius causing an oblique wound wound approximately two cm in length with considerable contusions at the margins,
  • created a comminuted fracture of the radius with at least 3 bone pieces being broken off the radius (2 x 1 cm + 1 x 3mm)
  • then passed through the forearm leaving several small lead flakes in the wound
  • then exited on the volar or palm side of the wrist leaving a 1 cm slit 2 cm above the crease of the wrist
  • entered the left thigh on an oblique angle along the direction of the femur appearance being consistent with having struck by the butt end of an intact missile.
  • having exited the thigh leaving a bullet whose only deformation is a lateral compression on on the butt end

Sturdivan does not explain each step in terms of the force that the bullet would experience in each of those impacts in order to create the damage observed.  For example, he does not identify the pressure required to fracture the radius as it did and relate that to the speed of the bullet and whether at that speed, the bullet would deform if hit nose-on or sideways etc.   He avoids it entirely.  Not only did this bullet fracture the radius, which is the hardest bone in the body, causing a large irregular entry hole in the cuff and leaving flecks of lead in the wound, it did this after obliterating 10 cm of rib.
But did not fracture a radius bone, if I recall correctly.
I can.  No one has ever fired a WCC/MC bullet from a Carcano, doing the damage done to the rib and radius of JBC, and having the characteristics remotely similar to those on JBC's wounds and clothing and looking anything like CE399.

This is simply not true. In his book "The JFK Myths", Larry Sturdivan discusses the speed the bullet had when it:

First struck JFK's neck.
Exited JFK's neck.
First struck Connally's back.
First struck Connally's rib, the first direct strike on bone.
First struck Connally's wrist bone.
First struck Connally's thigh.


He estimates the speed of the bullet, when it struck Connally's rib, was 1,400 fps. And it was travelling sideways, at that point.

He states that when travelling point first, the bullet won't start to deform once it drops below 1,700 fps. But when travelling sideways, if won't start to deform once it drops below 1,400 fps. So, when the bullet first struck Connally's rib, it was just going fast enough to start to deform. Hence the side of the bullet being squeezed and lead being pushed out of it's base. The speed of the bullet quickly dropped below 1,400 fps and did not deform any further, even after striking the much stronger wrist bone.

Larry Sturdivan does not discuss the pressures involved, only the speed of the bullet needed to deform. He discusses this pretty thorughly.

And that is entirely apart from the fact that the evidence from the people who were there who said that JFK and JBC were hit by separate bullets.

But what witness could possibly view two different people at the same time? One's concentration would, at best, be only one either Kennedy or Connally. They can't watch one with the left eye and the other with the right. And the only witness who had an opinion on which one they saw get wounded first, Mrs. Connally, was not looking at either man at z-222. Who are the other witnesses who you are referring to?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 22, 2023, 06:08:44 PM
This is simply not true. In his book "The JFK Myths", Larry Sturdivan discusses the speed the bullet had when it:

First struck JFK's neck.
Exited JFK's neck.
First struck Connally's back.
First struck Connally's rib, the first direct strike on bone.
First struck Connally's wrist bone.
First struck Connally's thigh.


He estimates the speed of the bullet, when it struck Connally's rib, was 1,400 fps. And it was travelling sideways, at that point.

He states that when travelling point first, the bullet won't start to deform once it drops below 1,700 fps. But when travelling sideways, if won't start to deform once it drops below 1,400 fps. So, when the bullet first struck Connally's rib, it was just going fast enough to start to deform. Hence the side of the bullet being squeezed and lead being pushed out of it's base. The speed of the bullet quickly dropped below 1,400 fps and did not deform any further, even after striking the much stronger wrist bone.

A bit of revision from his HSCA testimony (1 HSCA 396):

Mr. MATHEWS. So at what velocity will a bullet begin to deform?
Mr. STURDIVAN. OK, the bullet would begin to deform, if it strikes say, soft tissue, at something-remember, the density of soft tissue is around one, the density of water, and it will begin to deform at something in excess of 2,000 feet per second. In other words, at the muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano. If it strikes bone, which is twice as dense, then it would begin to deform nose on at approximately 1,400 feet per second. If the bullet turns sideways, which is a weaker orientation, it will deform down to around 1,000 feet feet per second.

Quote
Larry Sturdivan does not discuss the pressures involved, only the speed of the bullet needed to deform. He discusses this pretty thorughly.
And that is the problem.  We can determine the strength of the bullet and bone in terms of yield pressure (force per unit area at which the molecular bonds within the material break). The force is the time rate of change of momentum of the material the bullet is striking. That can only be determined by experiment.  He does not refer to any experimental data. 

Try firing a MC bullet so that it hits a rib bone sideways at 1400 feet/sec.  I think you will find, as Sturdivan originally said, it will be deforming significantly. 

Quote
But what witness could possibly view two different people at the same time? One's concentration would, at best, be only one either Kennedy or Connally. They can't watch one with the left eye and the other with the right. And the only witness who had an opinion on which one they saw get wounded first, Mrs. Connally, was not looking at either man at z-222. Who are the other witnesses who you are referring to?
A witness does not have to view two people at the same time.  At least 20 people said that JFK reacted to the first bullet and at least 40 said that there was a long pause between 1 and 2 and a much shorter space between 2 and 3 (https://spmlaw.ca/isl/uploads/2021/04/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf).  That absolutely excludes a second shot SBT, which seems to be the current view. When you combine that with the Connallys being adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that pretty much excludes the SBT.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 24, 2023, 03:31:32 AM

A bit of revision from his HSCA testimony (1 HSCA 396):

Mr. MATHEWS. So at what velocity will a bullet begin to deform?
Mr. STURDIVAN. OK, the bullet would begin to deform, if it strikes say, soft tissue, at something-remember, the density of soft tissue is around one, the density of water, and it will begin to deform at something in excess of 2,000 feet per second. In other words, at the muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano. If it strikes bone, which is twice as dense, then it would begin to deform nose on at approximately 1,400 feet per second. If the bullet turns sideways, which is a weaker orientation, it will deform down to around 1,000 feet feet per second.
And that is the problem.  We can determine the strength of the bullet and bone in terms of yield pressure (force per unit area at which the molecular bonds within the material break). The force is the time rate of change of momentum of the material the bullet is striking. That can only be determined by experiment.  He does not refer to any experimental data. 

But scientists commonly change their estimates over time. Cranks come up with a number and stick with it no matter what. Scientists has given wildly different estimates on the age of the Earth, before eventually settling on 4.567 billion years during the last generation. While many 'Scientific Creationist' have consistently given the true age as 6,000 years, and do so to this day. Changing one's estimates on measured data is not the sign of a poor scientist. Not changing one's estimate could be a sign that one is dealing with a crank.

Early experiments indicated to Mr. Sturdivan deformation velocities of 1,400 to 1,000 fps, later experiments with better film and instruments refined this to 1,700 to 1,400 fps. Nothing is more common in science than getting better data over time.

Try firing a MC bullet so that it hits a rib bone sideways at 1400 feet/sec.  I think you will find, as Sturdivan originally said, it will be deforming significantly. 

Modern slow motion film can accurately measure the speed of a bullet. Why don't CTers demonstrate what happens when a bullet strikes bone at 1,400 fps? Instead of providing definitive film or the work of ballistic experts who do this sort of work, they only use words to describe how CE399 could not have come out with so little deformation.

It's true. I have not done the work myself. But the NOVA video of Luke and Michael Haag testing the SBT at least looks like good valid experiments. Where we can see a bullet travelling in slow motion and tumbling.

The videos of pro CT, anti CE 399 experiments are, well, non existent. The CTers don't even go through the motions of conducting scientific experiments.

Where is the video of someone shooting through a ballistic gel block six inches wide, then into another ballistic gel block ten inches wide with rib bones embedded in it, then catching the bullet in a third ballistic gel block? Run this experiment ten times and show me that all ten bullets look vastly more deformed than CE 399. Or at least have a ballistic expert claim his has done this experiment. I have seen nothing like this.

By the way, I left out another block with an array of wrist bones. This makes the experiment more complicated. And doesn't matter, because by the time the bullet reaches the wrist bone, it is going too slow to be further deformed. But they can add a fourth block if they wish.

A witness does not have to view two people at the same time.  At least 20 people said that JFK reacted to the first bullet and at least 40 said that there was a long pause between 1 and 2 and a much shorter space between 2 and 3 (https://spmlaw.ca/isl/uploads/2021/04/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf).  That absolutely excludes a second shot SBT, which seems to be the current view. When you combine that with the Connallys being adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that pretty much excludes the SBT.

Man. I can tell that you are no skeptic. No skeptic would put so much faith in eyewitnesses.

At least 20 people said that JFK reacted first? Could this have something to do with most people being focused on the Kennedy's? How many people in the crowd were telling crowd were telling themselves "Oh, this is so exciting! Here comes the Governor and his wife, along with that other couple"? And the Secret Service. Were they concentrating more on Kennedy or Connally? Who was concentrating more on Connally?

Nellie Connally was adamant that John Connally was hit after JFK. John Connally was adamant that his wife could not be mistaken. If she saw it that way, that's the way it happened. Of course, the Zapruder film shows both Kennedy and Connally appearing to react at the same time as they emerged from behind the sign. And absolutely shows Nellie Connally looking at neither man at this time. Oh, yes, this is the perfect witness.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 24, 2023, 05:45:30 PM
But scientists commonly change their estimates over time. Cranks come up with a number and stick with it no matter what. Scientists has given wildly different estimates on the age of the Earth, before eventually settling on 4.567 billion years during the last generation. While many 'Scientific Creationist' have consistently given the true age as 6,000 years, and do so to this day. Changing one's estimates on measured data is not the sign of a poor scientist. Not changing one's estimate could be a sign that one is dealing with a crank.

Early experiments indicated to Mr. Sturdivan deformation velocities of 1,400 to 1,000 fps, later experiments with better film and instruments refined this to 1,700 to 1,400 fps. Nothing is more common in science than getting better data over time.
Did they? If so, where is the data?  Sturdivan does not even acknowledge the change, let alone provide an explanation for it.

Quote
Modern slow motion film can accurately measure the speed of a bullet. Why don't CTers demonstrate what happens when a bullet strikes bone at 1,400 fps? Instead of providing definitive film or the work of ballistic experts who do this sort of work, they only use words to describe how CE399 could not have come out with so little deformation.
It should not be done by anyone who has already formed a firm conclusion about what the result should be.

Besides, is not simply a matter of having a bullet strike a bone.  This bone was a living bone embedded in a human body.  Since the bullet did not shatter the fifth rib at the point where it struck, it must have struck obliquely.  Yet it left this 3/8" x 3/8" hole in the back of the shirt:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_back_shirt_hole.JPG)

It pushed the entire fifth rib inward (causing a fracture where it joins the spine).  It then passed through the rib driving bone shards into the lower right lung before exiting below the right nipple. It then passed through the shirt and jacket, right jacket sleeve and french cuff leaving this jagged long hole:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)

Quote
The videos of pro CT, anti CE 399 experiments are, well, non existent. The CTers don't even go through the motions of conducting scientific experiments.
We don't need pro CT, anti CE399 experiments. We need objective testing.  Besides, based on the evidence one can easily accept the WC conclusion but conclude that all three bullets struck JFK and/or JBC.
Quote
At least 20 people said that JFK reacted first? Could this have something to do with most people being focused on the Kennedy's?
If they were so focused on the Kennedys, which seems reasonable, why would not a single witness observe that JFK did not react to the first shot and continued to smile and wave for several seconds after the phantom missed first shot?

Quote
Nellie Connally was adamant that John Connally was hit after JFK. John Connally was adamant that his wife could not be mistaken. If she saw it that way, that's the way it happened. Of course, the Zapruder film shows both Kennedy and Connally appearing to react at the same time as they emerged from behind the sign. And absolutely shows Nellie Connally looking at neither man at this time. Oh, yes, this is the perfect witness.
She also said that she did not look back at JFK after the second shot and said that she immediately reached out and pulled him toward her.  She is looking back at JFK prior to z270.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 25, 2023, 05:11:56 PM

Did they? If so, where is the data?  Sturdivan does not even acknowledge the change, let alone provide an explanation for it.
It should not be done by anyone who has already formed a firm conclusion about what the result should be.

Where is the data of some ballistic expert showing that Larry Sturdivan's most recent estimates are in error? In an ideal world, a ballistic expert would:

1. Be an real ballistic expert who claims to have looked into the properties of the WCC/MC bullet
2. Claim to have run experiments designed to test the SBT that is set up with designed estimate the maximum velocity the bullet can have without having bone start to deform it while travelling point-first and sideways
3. Provide the raw data, which I guess would be the film of these experiments.

For Step 3, I guess some website would have to be provided where the film could be seen and explanations given about what is being seen. In addition to the film, all the still frames of that film would have to be accessible. So one can count frames to get the time the bullet travelled a certain small distance, giving us the speed. This would take a good deal of work. I know of only one site that provided still images of all the Zapruder film, the Costella site, so it appears to be something that is a little expensive to do, else many people would provide a website like the Costella site.

For the Pro-LN side, we do have Sturdivan, who successfully passes steps 1 and 2. And only fails to provide step 3.

For the Pro-CT side, we have nothing, not step 1, nor step 2, nor step 3.

I don't think step 3 is necessary until we get a ballistic expert who disagrees with Mr. Sturdivan. If that happens, then someone is going to have to go through the expense and trouble of making the raw data available before we can come to a conclusion. But in the absence of such a Pro-CT ballistic expert, I think it is safe to conclude, for now, that Mr. Sturdivan's estimates are the best we have. And good reasons to believe him. Because no one wants their professional reputation damaged, even if they are retired.

Besides, is not simply a matter of having a bullet strike a bone.  This bone was a living bone embedded in a human body.  Since the bullet did not shatter the fifth rib at the point where it struck, it must have struck obliquely.  Yet it left this 3/8" x 3/8" hole in the back of the shirt:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_back_shirt_hole.JPG)

It pushed the entire fifth rib inward (causing a fracture where it joins the spine).  It then passed through the rib driving bone shards into the lower right lung before exiting below the right nipple. It then passed through the shirt and jacket, right jacket sleeve and french cuff leaving this jagged long hole:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)

And where is the professional opinion of a ballistic expert that this could not have been done by CE-399? Non experts, we can find galore. But I'm not looking for that.

We don't need pro CT, anti CE399 experiments. We need objective testing.  Besides, based on the evidence one can easily accept the WC conclusion but conclude that all three bullets struck JFK and/or JBC.If they were so focused on the Kennedys, which seems reasonable, why would not a single witness observe that JFK did not react to the first shot and continued to smile and wave for several seconds after the phantom missed first shot?

I'm going off on a tangent here to make a point.

The Michael-Moreley experiment shows that the speed of light is the same in all directions. One of the most surprising results in the history of physics.

Let's say a Mr. Jones objects to this. Claims that this cannot be true. Mr. Michael and Mr. Moreley must be biased against the truth, that the speed of light does vary, depending on the direction of Earth's travel through space. Mr. Jones demands that this experiment be re-run, but with this time, a non-biased physicist.

So, a Mr. Able, a professional and well respected physicist re-runs the experiment. And finds that, indeed, the same of light is the same in all directions.

Mr. Jones claims that this is no good, because clearly Mr. Able is biased against the theory that the speed of light varies depending on the direction the light travels.

In a sense, Mr. Jones is correct. Mr. Michael, Mr. Moreley and Mr. Able are all biased against the theory that the speed of light varies depending on the direction. But this biased was formed as the result of them testing nature.

Question: Is it possible that the real problem is not the bias of Mr. Michael, Mr. Moreley and Mr. Able. That the real problem is the bias of Mr. Jones? Whenever he gets an unfavorable result back from someone, he automatically concludes that that person must have a bias. Why else would they report back with a false result?

Question: Is it possible that the real problem is not the bias of Mr. Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag. The real problem is with your bias?

Question: If another professional, well respected ballistic expert, let's say Mr. Smith, reported that he conducted some ballistic experiments and concluded that CE-399 could have caused the wounds to JFK and Connally by itself, is it not likely that you would be saying the Mr. Smith is clearly biased and we need this experiment run by someone who is not biased?

Question: If Mr. Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag are not enough, then how many ballistic experts would it take to convince you that the scientific evidence supports the possibility that CE-399 wounded both JFK and Connally?


What we need is a professional, well respected ballistic expert who reports that Sturdivan and the Haags are wrong before we can reconsidered this matter. One will do. But we need to find that one expert.

It is unlikely that an expert like Sturdivan and the Haags are wrong. They have a professional reputation to maintain. If you screw up on the most famous Cold Case of all, it's going to hurt. You may find it difficult to get hired for the sort of jobs you want to do. Even for someone who is retired, like Luke Haag, you like to keep your professional reputation. It's nice to get invited to speak in from of your professional colleagues. I doubt one of them would lie or be greatly mistaken.

So the CT side needs to find such a profession, respected ballistic expert who disagrees with Sturdivan and the Haags. If this happens, this is surprising because someone is going to lose their reputation. But if this happens, then it will be necessary for people to provide the raw data, the film and stills from the experiments. Data on the type of ballistic gel they used. Data on the 'targets', like the type, size, and time after death of the bones they used. Until such a time there is no debate. On side has professional opinion. They other does not.

She also said that she did not look back at JFK after the second shot and said that she immediately reached out and pulled him toward her.  She is looking back at JFK prior to z270.

Both JFK and Connally clearly appear to be wounded as they emerge from behind the sign, indeed both appear to start to react starting at z-226.

What are the minimum qualifications for a witness.

1. That they be clear minded and sober individuals.
2. That they have no obvious reason to lie. Of course, it's possible someone has an unknown motive to lie that is not obvious.
3. That they are looking in the direction of what they are witnessing.

If a witness, Mr. Eyes, claims that a Mr. Suspect was not shooting at Mr. Victim at the time he was shot. But there is a film that shows Mr. Victim getting wounded while Mr. Eyes is not looking in the direction of Mr. Suspect, then the testimony of Mr. Eyes cannot be taken seriously. No matter how good a witness he otherwise seems to be.

Mrs. Connally was looking at various times JFK and Mr. Connally. But not during the critical period of the mid z-220's. And even if she was, I still don't understand, if both were wounded by the same bullet, that she could see concentrate on both men at the same time and tell that both were wounded at the same moment. But all that is academic because she wasn't even looking at either man.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 25, 2023, 07:00:09 PM
Just because you believe "both appear to start to react starting at z-226" doesn't mean that's when Mrs. Connally saw each of them them reacting.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 26, 2023, 05:31:36 AM
Just because you believe "both appear to start to react starting at z-226" doesn't mean that's when Mrs. Connally saw each of them them reacting.
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding.  Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 26, 2023, 08:25:03 AM
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding.  Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.

Mason thinks three shots were fired by Oswald from the Sniper's Nest window and that all three struck. Well, OK.

But Mason looks at this GIF below and sees Connally politely showing "concern" for Kennedy. He doesn't think Connally just took one through the torso and wrist. But there's Connally's right arm springing up weirdly, his right shoulder dropping, the gasping for air and the dangling wrist.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/cd/45/rI3VSEP5_o.gif)

People may be confused as to why Mason is going on with this. He has a Pet Theory that has JFK take the neck transit shot in the Z190s. That bullet emerges out of Kennedy's throat, glides pass the left side of Connally without striking him and is gently stopped by the Governor's left thigh (so gently, per Mason, Connally doesn't perceived he's been hit). You need, like, three feet of wood to stop those Carcano bullets, but Connally stops it with three inches of flesh.

Mason's second shot doesn't arrive until Z272. That's the one that strikes Connally's back, courses through the right torso, emerging to strike the wrist. Per Mason, the bullet fragments off the wrist causing the dent in the windshield frame and inside of the windshield. The head shot to Kennedy occurs 2 1/4 seconds later. This matches the bang.......bang....bang shot-spacing pattern he thinks occurred.*

Oh, and Mason thinks that second shot that struck Connally made Kennedy's hair flutter as it breezed by.
__________________

* But see Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o) ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=6345;topic=181.120;last_msg=12146) for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 26, 2023, 03:05:41 PM
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding.  Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.

Jerry Organ made the same points I was going to make.

You (Mason) say that during z-226 through z-232, Connally is not reacting to being wounded. He is reacting to hearing the shot that wounded JFK. Connally was really first wounded at a later point.

But how did Connally react to hearing this shot around z222?

1. By his "Soon to be shot" coat suddenly bulging forward for one frame, as seen in z-224.
2. By his "Soon to be shot" right shoulder" suddenly moving forward, as if it had been hit from behind, starting by z-226.
3. By jerking his "Soon to be shot" right wrist up high where we can see his hat, which was held in his right hand, starting at z-226, the same frame JFK starts to jerk both elbows upwards.

It is as if Connally was psychic and started moving the parts of his body that was soon to be hit. Even his coat was psychic.

There were multiple amazing coincidences, if this was just Connally reacting to hearing the shots, and not Connally reacting to being wounded in the right shoulder, chest area and right wrist.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 26, 2023, 04:07:31 PM
Everybody interprets the Z film as showing what it is they already believe. It’s a giant Rorschach test.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 27, 2023, 12:22:04 AM

Everybody interprets the Z film as showing what it is they already believe. It’s a giant Rorschach test.

It's no use for science to analyze data. It's no use for use to look at the Zapruder film. The whole universe is just a Rorschach test. The Earth may appear to be spherical, or maybe that's just our bias kicking in. We can't learn anything from nature because we are only going to find what we expect to find. Except there are all kinds of examples where scientists saw things that they didn't expect, despite their biases. That is how science continuously evolves where old theories are replaced by better theories.

Any evidence against one's beliefs can be explained away as the other side bias is making them see things.

If I only had one opportunity to watch the Zapruder film, I would buy the notion that maybe I misremembered what I saw. Maybe my bias made me see it incorrectly. But not when I can view it over and over again. And see Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder move forward. And his "soon to be hit" coat move. And his "soon to be hit" right wrist shoot upwards.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 27, 2023, 06:33:45 AM
It's no use for science to analyze data. It's no use for use to look at the Zapruder film. The whole universe is just a Rorschach test. The Earth may appear to be spherical, or maybe that's just our bias kicking in. We can't learn anything from nature because we are only going to find what we expect to find.

What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?

Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 28, 2023, 12:26:41 AM
And see Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder move forward. And his "soon to be hit" coat move. And his "soon to be hit" right wrist shoot upwards.
According to the evidence (Gayle Newman and the Connallys in particular) JBC's shoulders did move like that before he was hit. He moved them in response to hearing the first shot, but not thinking he had been hit by it. So what you see in the zfilm fits with JBC and JFK reacting to the first shot.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 29, 2023, 02:12:33 AM

According to the evidence (Gayle Newman and the Connallys in particular) JBC's shoulders did move like that before he was hit. He moved them in response to hearing the first shot, but not thinking he had been hit by it. So what you see in the zfilm fits with JBC and JFK reacting to the first shot.

As always, I'm not that interested in eyewitness testimony. Not when I can see for myself as many times as I like. Unlike the eyewitness who could only experience it once and were not expecting to see anything.

Question: Which Zapruder frames are you talking about where JBC's shoulders move like that before he was hit, in response to hearing the first shot?

The frames I am talking about are:
  z223- . . . : Where we can see the start of JBC's right shoulder moving forward.
  z223-z225: Where we can see JBC's coat move, the "lapel flip" or the "coat bulge" (I can't tell which) in frame z-224.
  z225- . . . : Where we can see JBC suddenly jerk his right hand upward, bring his hat into view by z-226.

Question: What frame numbers correspond to each of the shots you think were fired?

I believe the frame numbers that correspond to the three shots were:
  z153: First shot miss.
  z222: Second shot (SBT).
  z312: Third shot (head shot).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 29, 2023, 02:30:30 AM

What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?

Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.

Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 29, 2023, 06:36:59 AM
There’s nothing coincidental about it. People who believe in a single bullet see what they consider simultaneous reactions, and people who believe in separate shots see separate reactions.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 30, 2023, 12:14:39 AM
Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.
I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 30, 2023, 02:57:44 AM

Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.

I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.

Don't see any coincidences?

How about Connally's initial reactions being related to his wounds?

* The forward movement of Connally's right shoulder, both the location and direction of the bullet corresponding to the location and direction of Connally's movement.
* The movement of the right side of Connally's coat, again, near the location of the bullet exiting Connally's chest.
* The movement of Connally's right wrist, again, near the location of the bullet striking the wrist.

* There is also the jerking up of JFK's elbows right at the time, although, yes, this could be the result of JFK being wounded, while Connally was reacting to hearing this same shot. Although it would be strange that Connally movements correspond to Connally's wounds that would occur about three seconds later, movement of his shoulder, coat and wrist.

* And the coincidence of the lining up of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wound and Connally's back wound. LNers were fantastically lucky that this movement of Connally occurred in the z220's, when these wound locations line up so well with the SBT. It would have been far better for CTers if these movements started after z-240, when these locations were not lined up.
* And the coincidence of the Zapruder camera jiggle at z-227, corresponding with a shot at z-222.

These may all be coincidences. But if so they are real coincidences that support the SBT. If there were plotters behind this assassination, they were very lucky to have so many things fall their way. Not at least seeing some coincidences shows how strong your bias is.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 30, 2023, 03:47:18 PM
Don't see any coincidences?

How about Connally's initial reactions being related to his wounds?

* The forward movement of Connally's right shoulder, both the location and direction of the bullet corresponding to the location and direction of Connally's movement.
* The movement of the right side of Connally's coat, again, near the location of the bullet exiting Connally's chest.
* The movement of Connally's right wrist, again, near the location of the bullet striking the wrist.

* There is also the jerking up of JFK's elbows right at the time, although, yes, this could be the result of JFK being wounded, while Connally was reacting to hearing this same shot. Although it would be strange that Connally movements correspond to Connally's wounds that would occur about three seconds later, movement of his shoulder, coat and wrist.
All of this is consistent with what JBC said he did in reaction to the first shot.  He said he turned around in an attempt to see JFK.  Not only is his turn from z228 to z270 consistent with what he said he did, there is no other time where he makes any attempt at all to see JFK.

Quote
* And the coincidence of the lining up of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wound and Connally's back wound. LNers were fantastically lucky that this movement of Connally occurred in the z220's, when these wound locations line up so well with the SBT. It would have been far better for CTers if these movements started after z-240, when these locations were not lined up.
But the JFK neck wound trajectory and the right armpit of JBC never align with the SN, so I think it is a stretch to call that a coincidence.  The path through JFK was right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees to the car direction at z222. Over the distance between JFK and JBC (at least 24") the bullet would have traveled 24 (tan 9)=3.8 inches farther left.  If JFK's neck at z222 (assuming he was leaning over the right side of the car and miraculously in the ensuing 2 frames moved about 3 inches farther left) was 8 inches inside the car, JBC's right armpit would have to be 12 inches inside the car.  Do you really think JBC was that far inside the car?

Quote
* And the coincidence of the Zapruder camera jiggle at z-227, corresponding with a shot at z-222.

These may all be coincidences. But if so they are real coincidences that support the SBT. If there were plotters behind this assassination, they were very lucky to have so many things fall their way. Not at least seeing some coincidences shows how strong your bias is.
Again, movement of both men in response to the first shot is not a coincidence. They are not independent events.  It is what the evidence said occurred.  But the evidence also says that JBC was not hit in the back by it.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 30, 2023, 04:58:51 PM
All of this is consistent with what JBC said he did in reaction to the first shot.  He said he turned around in an attempt to see JFK.  Not only is his turn from z228 to z270 consistent with what he said he did, there is no other time where he makes any attempt at all to see JFK.

Mason's trying (it's pathetic, really) to move Connally's torso wounding down from the Z220s to Z272, where he thinks the Connally-falling-towards-Nellie movement (that began in the Z240s) is a "sailing forward" movement by Connally caused by the bullet's impact at Z272.

Oh yeah, his Z270s bullet just missed the President's head, causing his hair to flutter. Also, the left visor, that's been flapping from wind-flow over it all along Elm, moves in connection with his Z270s shot.

We don't know what shifts in posture Connally attempted to try to see Kennedy over his right shoulder as the car approached the sign. I would move my bum over a bit to the left (towards the car's midline) so I would have more room to swing my legs rightward. Could be a leg was pinned or numb and an attempt to turn around to look over the left shoulder then seemed more viable.

Connally's head is seen above the car in the frames as the car approaches the sign and he moves his head to his right in the Z260s Z160s (his wife Nelie also turns her head rightward in the Z260s Z160s; both said the sound of the first shot made them look about). Connally picked as the moment he thought he was struck a frame just after the car emerges from behind the sign, some two seconds before Mason said he was struck in the torso and wrist at Z272.

Connally thought he was looking forward, relative to the car, when struck. His eyes are probably turned towards the front of the car's travel by the Z220s; his head is still turning but the eyes move first.

Quote
But the JFK neck wound trajectory and the right armpit of JBC never align with the SN, so I think it is a stretch to call that a coincidence.  The path through JFK was right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees to the car direction at z222. Over the distance between JFK and JBC (at least 24") the bullet would have traveled 24 (tan 9)=3.8 inches farther left.  If JFK's neck at z222 (assuming he was leaning over the right side of the car and miraculously in the ensuing 2 frames moved about 3 inches farther left) was 8 inches inside the car, JBC's right armpit would have to be 12 inches inside the car.  Do you really think JBC was that far inside the car?

Then how come people can take the models into 3D and, with next to no articulation, show the SBT worked?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/04/8STJSsPW_o.jpg)  (https://images2.imgbox.com/91/1d/uwiEZsww_o.jpg)

Mason doesn't understand perspective and spatial alignment. His Pet Theory was quite clever at one time but it never panned out. Andrew is a nice decent fellow with keen knowledge in other areas of the assassination.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 30, 2023, 08:25:08 PM
Mason's trying (it's pathetic, really) to move Connally's torso wounding down from the Z220s to Z272, where he thinks the Connally-falling-towards-Nellie movement (that began in the Z240s) is a "sailing forward" movement by Connally caused by the bullet's impact at Z272.

Oh yeah, his Z270s bullet just missed the President's head, causing his hair to flutter. Also, the left visor, that's been flapping from wind-flow over it all along Elm, moves in connection with his Z270s shot.
Yeah, my "bats__t crazy" theory, as you have called it, is that the evidence means something. You seem to think that it is wrong to accept the evidence for what it says.

I am not the first person to think that the shots may actually have been 1........2....3  with the last two in rapid succession.  It seems the FBI thought this for several months after the assassination just based on the evidence, as this Warren Commission model (https://www.mediafaxfoto.ro/Preview.aspx?Id=6130052) demonstrates:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/wc_model_of_shots.JPG)

The three strings show the shot paths. It is derived from the evidence and indicates where the president's car was located when each of the shots occurred. I reached the same conclusion long ago just following the evidence and only discovered this model recently (it appears to have been posted in October 2013).

Of course, the model was made for the WC before the "experts" and the Connallys themselves started thinking they could see things in the zfilm and before the FBI's "reconstruction" in May 1964.

Quote
One only needs to see one of Mason's SketchUp SquarePants graphics to see he doesn't understand perspective and spatial alignment. His Pet Theory was quite clever at one time but it never panned out.
It never panned out for you because you refuse to accept the evidence that the last two shots were closer together, or that the first shot struck JFK in the neck, or that Hickey saw what he said he saw, or that Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot as he said he did, etc.  You think that all the dozens of witnesses who said that the last two shots were in rapid succession were wrong.  I don't.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 30, 2023, 11:31:48 PM
Yeah, my "bats__t crazy" theory, as you have called it, is that the evidence means something. You seem to think that it is wrong to accept the evidence for what it says.

It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.

Quote
I am not the first person to think that the shots may actually have been 1........2....3  with the last two in rapid succession.  It seems the FBI thought this for several months after the assassination just based on the evidence, as this Warren Commission model (https://www.mediafaxfoto.ro/Preview.aspx?Id=6130052) demonstrates:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/wc_model_of_shots.JPG)

The three strings show the shot paths. It is derived from the evidence and indicates where the president's car was located when each of the shots occurred. I reached the same conclusion long ago just following the evidence and only discovered this model recently (it appears to have been posted in October 2013).

So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/c0/a6/QHDze5Mo_o.jpg)

You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.

The model does not represent the Warren Commission's final word on the shot sequence, other than options they might have considered.

Quote
Of course, the model was made for the WC before the "experts" and the Connallys themselves started thinking they could see things in the zfilm and before the FBI's "reconstruction" in May 1964.

Sure. the model was made early in 1964. But you don't know when and why those strings were added. Aren't you the one dismissing evidence when you promote the model's "accuracy" over the on-site surveying and the "Queen Mary" frame-by-frame recreation of the Zapruder film?

Quote
It never panned out for you because you refuse to accept the evidence that the last two shots were closer together,

See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o) ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=6345;topic=181.120;last_msg=12146) for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.

Quote
or that the first shot struck JFK in the neck, or that Hickey saw what he said he saw,

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH)  (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg)

Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

Quote
or that Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot as he said he did, etc.

(https://i.ibb.co/cL4FB13/Sketch-Up-Analysis-of-Greer-head-in-Altgens.png)

Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.

Quote
You think that all the dozens of witnesses who said that the last two shots were in rapid succession were wrong.  I don't.

And you think an equal number who didn't describe the shot-spanning that way are wrong. Witness perception to an unexpected event and memory reconstruction aren't the most reliable to go.

I used to correspond to Robert Cutler, an architect and JFK researcher who lived in Massachusetts. One time I challenged him on his Umbrella Man Theory that a jet-propelled flechette was fired at Kennedy from the umbrella seen in the Zapruder film. He defended that theory on a visceral level.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 02, 2023, 06:32:53 PM
It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.
It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
Robert H. Jackson (2 H 159):
Linda Willis (7 H 498):
Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell(7 H 478)
Lady Bird Johnson (5 H 564):
Luke Mooney (3 H 282):
Quote
So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/c0/a6/QHDze5Mo_o.jpg)

You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.
Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.

Quote
The model does not represent the Warren Commission's final word on the shot sequence, other than options they might have considered.
Obviously, it does not represent their final word.  They endorsed the SBT after all.  But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs.  (Not sure about McCloy).

Quote
See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o) ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=6345;topic=181.120;last_msg=12146) for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.
Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence".  He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots.  That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225).   Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.” 

Quote
Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".
I don't interpret.  I read.  He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying.  I don't accept that he was lying.

Quote
Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.
The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay.  He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on February 03, 2023, 02:41:58 AM

Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.

In popular history, the trial of witches in the late Middle Ages was a great tragedy, resulting in the needless death of thousands of innocent women. But what does the witness testimony have to say? In thousands of cases eyewitnesses testified before judges about the witchcraft they observed. The support for the practicing of witchcraft is overwhelmingly supported by eyewitness testimony. Surely, they couldn't have all been lying or mistaken. If we have the same faith that Andrew Mason has in eyewitnesses, we would have to say that popular history is wrong. That much harm was averted by the death of all those witches.

Or on the question of Bigfoot. Rational thinking says they don't exist. If we can't capture one, surely we could shoot and kill one. Or get one run over by a car. Or if that is not big enough, a logging truck. Or find a body, Or a skeleton. Or at least a skull. If nothing else, we should at least be able to find EDNA of an unknown primate, as we can find the EDNA of other animals like bears and lynxes. But year after year, nothing turns up. And yet, the eyewitness evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelming. Thousands have seen a Bigfoot. Surely not all those witnesses could be lying or mistaken.

Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons. A belief that witchcraft is real, that Bigfoot is real, can influence what people perceive. A plausible reason why Bigfoot sightings were so rare before 1958, but much more common afterwards, particularly after the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. The Crack-Thump of a single rifle shot can be mistaken for two shots. And is perhaps more easily mistaken for two shots for a longer shot at 88 yards than ones at 63 or 43 yards. Or the sound of the shot and of a bullet fragment striking  the metal windshield frame. Their are possible explanations for witnesses being mistaken in 1963.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 03, 2023, 06:02:43 PM
Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.
Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?



Quote
Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.
Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF):

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Loftus_table.JPG)
Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Joe Elliott on February 04, 2023, 10:25:01 PM

Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?


Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF):

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Loftus_table.JPG)
Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).

The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.

Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

Quote
This KLIF bulletin from Dallas: Three shots reportedly were fired at the motorcade of President Kennedy today near the downtown section. KLIF News is checking out the report. We will have further reports. Stay tuned.

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.

I think it is possible that people might not remember the number of shots, as surprising as that may seem. The motorcycles backfired a lot. People might think it was a backfire. As late as z-312, it is clear that most people, not in the limousine or the follow up Secret Service car, realized that shots had been fired. Many were still clapping at that point. Without realizing in real time, that shots had been fired, and pre-occupied with seeing the President, they likely would not have kept a count of the number of "backfires/shots".

Why would people be wrong so much about the timing of the shots?

It would be easy to mistake the last shot, the shot at z-312, as two separate shots. A rifle shot makes a "Crack-Thump" sound, a double sound. This would be most distinct for the final shot, the one at 88 yards. For the shots at 43 and 63 yards, the "Crack-Thump" might come too close together to recognize as two separate sounds. Also, a fragment from the third shot struck metal, the windshield frame. This did not happen with the first shot.

I, of course, am not an expert on the perception of rifle sounds, but is plausible that at a shorter range, the "Crack-Thump" are too close together to perceive as two separate sounds. But at longer ranges, they are. And, for all I know, that transition may happen at around 75 yards.

If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.

If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".

In short, there are two different reasons a lot of witnesses get the spacing wrong. The third shot is the one most likely to be mistaken for two shots right on top of each other. And witnesses may have been influenced by over-hearing other witnesses, particularly over-hearing a "Bang-Bang" witness.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 04, 2023, 11:48:49 PM
Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?

Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF):

Mason could have written this:

    "In this study, Palamara summarizes the reports of 59 
     witnesses who reported observing the Presidential limousine
     either slowing dramatically or coming to a complete halt
     after bullets began to be fired. This supports allegations
     that photographic evidence, including the Zapruder film,
     has been subjected to extensive alteration"

And here's a chart Mason could have prepared:

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s527/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg)

Per Mason-think, these are "witnesses are more trustworthy" things.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 05, 2023, 07:19:54 PM
The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.
But there is a big difference between a human's ability to hear and count the number of shots and its ability to determine the direction of the source.  It is not hard to hear three shots and recall the number of shots correctly, particularly if there was a pattern, such as 1, a space and then 2 together.  Direction is an entirely different matter and our brains are easily fooled or confused by nearby surfaces that reflect sound.

There is an easy way to tell if witnesses are simply poor witnesses or if they have been fooled or confused bu something they have in common.  There is no reason to think that poor witnesses will tend to collect in a certain area. Their geographical distribution should be random.

The difference in perception of the direction of the shots (which is determined by our brains from the difference in time between the arrival of the sound wavefront at each ear) is not random. If they were just poor witnesses, perception would not depend on where they were situated at the time of the shots - but they were.

Most of the witnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD or near the corner of Houston and Main were located near that corner or were in the TSBD itself (ie. the three men on the floor below the SN, Secret Service Agents behind the President, the Cabells, occupants of the press car).  The witnesses farther along Elm or Houston St.  where reflections from nearby surfaces such as the Pergolas or from the Triple Underpass were much more likely to report that they thought the shots came from a different direction (eg. Mary Woodward, John and Faye Chism, Chief Curry, Richard Dodd, S.M. Holland, Jean Hill, Orville Nix).  Many were just confused as to where the shots came from, which may have been because echos from multiple reflective surfaces nearby created uncertainty.

Quote
Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.
Right.  The Secret Service, the Connallys, Mary Woodward, all the people waiting to give statements in the Sheriff's office were listening to KLIF.  Even that fanciful possibility does not explain why they would report a particular pattern to the shots though, does it?

Quote
If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.
Very few witnesses said that the space between the last two shots was as short as the time between the supersonic compression wave (crack) and the muzzle blast. The ability to hear the "crack" depends on how close one is to the bullet path.  For a person located close to the bullet path at a distance of 100 m from the muzzle, the bullet (610 m/s - travel time 163 ms) arrives 130 ms before the muzzle blast (343 m/s - travel time 291 ms.).  It is difficult to understand how anyone would confuse the two sounds that close as two rifle shots.  Many said there was a distinct space between the last two.

Allan Sweatt: 19 H 531 (Decker exhibit).
or Forrest Sorrels: 21 H 548 and 7 H 345. or Eugene Boone: 3 H 292.or Arnold Rowland: 19 H 494 (Decker exhibit).  or Wm. Shelley: 6 H 329.or James Romak: 6 H 280. or James Altgens: 7 H 520or Thomas Dillard: WC 6 H 164.
Quote
If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".
But you can't simply 'discard' a witness recollection because you have a hunch they might be wrong.  The suggestion that they might have confused a shot sound with a supersonic crack that one can only hear if one is close to the bullet path is not consistent with any of the evidence that I have found except, perhaps, Roy Kellerman. Even Hickey, who was close to the bullet path, described two distinct shots having two different effects.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 06, 2023, 11:12:52 PM
It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
Robert H. Jackson (2 H 159):
  • "Then we realized or we thought that it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. ... I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure. "

Tom Dillard was sitting a few feet in front of Jackson. Reitzes writes:

    "Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News, said, "the three [shots
      were] approximately equally spaced." (6H163-64) In 1986
     Dillard told Richard Trask, "As distinct as I know I'm talking
     to you, I'm as convinced there were three clear shots. [snip]
     I thought they were fairly evenly spaced." (Trask, pp. 440-41)
          (My abridgement)

Quote
Linda Willis (7 H 498):
  • "Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went. "

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1q5awR3H0RJCh6pnpBbRSpLrBZzbsuBLm)

Linda can't see the President's right hand nor if he grabbed his throat. At least in the Z150s, she can see the President. But that's over two seconds before your first shot.

Quote
Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell(7 H 478)
  • "I heard the shot. Mrs. Cabell said, “Oh a gun” or “a shot”, and I was about to deny and say “Oh it must have been a firecracker” when the second and the third shots rang out. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession. There was no mistaking in my mind after that, that they were shots from a high-powered rifle".

Right. Mr. Cabell had an odd sense of time (15 seconds total):

    "Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately
     10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with
     not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
     Mr. HUBERT - Two to one ratio?
     Mr. CABELL - Approximately that. And again I say that, as you
     mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn't tell you the
     exact seconds because they were not counted."

And he said he wasn't actually counting off the seconds between either of the spans.

Quote
Lady Bird Johnson (5 H 564):
  • "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."

I don't quite see how that describes the spanning between the three shots. Could have been three evenly-spaced shots.

Sen. Yarborough sat next to Mrs. Johnson. Dave Reitzes writes:

    "Senator Yarborough said there had been a slight pause
     between the first two shots and a longer pause between the
     second and third." (Tom Wicker, "Kennedy Is Killed By Sniper
     As He Rides In Car In Dallas; Johnson Sworn In On Plane,"
     NEW YORK TIMES, November 23, 1963) "He said there
     seemed to be a pause of a few seconds between the first
     and second shots." "And then, he said, there was an even
     longer pause between the second and third shots." (Carleton
     Kent, "Tells of Hearing Three Shots: Sen. Yarborough Terms It
     'A Deed of Horror,'" CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, November 23,
     1963.) Yarborough later told the Warren Commission just the
     opposite, that "to me there seemed to be a long time between
     the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the
     second and third shots--these were my impressions that day
     ..." (7H440)

Overall, Yarborough's recalling more space between shots two-and-three than between shots one-and-two.

Quote
Luke Mooney (3 H 282):
  • "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot."

Somewhat ambiguous.

Quote
Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.

So you don't know if the string actually represents a specific sequence of shots.

Quote
Obviously, it does not represent their final word.  They endorsed the SBT after all.  But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs.  (Not sure about McCloy).

Maybe this is a good time to ask about what you were on when you ...

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wgl6VjE_NbhoqoI5WUAwM-KPny9FWGh2)
... posted stuff like this
 
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1F2uSDei7EWk4PP_srcpJQ1Ajpu_ocVh4)
... measured like this

Quote
Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence". 

Here's how the use of Sneed affects Dave's tally:
You haven't got much to complain about.

Quote
He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots.  That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225).

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rnPYtv1XKkICgLqDcp2eE60UNbcVM-WQ)  (https://images2.imgbox.com/b7/03/bJsinoZa_o.gif)
Given Moore's angle to the limousine
and the "Queen Mary" intervening,
the only way I can see Moore thinking
Kennedy "slumped" was in the
Z170s. The car is out of sight to
Moore by the Z220s "slump".
Unlike what he said to Sneed, Moore's 1964 statement says nothing about the shot-spacing. You just think you can make it fit using your bias of shot-spacing.

Quote
Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.”

That's from a November 26th report. It doesn't say anything about the shot-spacing. What does the two shot coming "in rapid succession" mean relative to how soon after the first shot?

Reitzes writes:

    "Emmett J. Hudson said the succession of shots "was
     pretty fast and not too fast either. It seemed like he had
     time enough to operate his gun plenty well -- when the
     shots were all fired. . . . They seemed pretty well evenly
     spaced." (7H564-65)"

Quote
I don't interpret.  I read.  He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying.  I don't accept that he was lying.

Less reading and imagining, and more looking at the images.

I do not think was lying. Hickey stated:

    "After a very short distance I heard a loud report which
     sounded like a firecracker. ... I stood up and looked to
     my right and rear in an attempt to identify it."

Hickey does this after the Z220s. That would be the second shot in my scenario.

    "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked
     to the rear and then looked at the President. He was
     slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening
     up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and
     looked."

The Altgens photo shows Hickey still turned looking backward. Between that moment (Z255) and, say, the Z280s, Hickey would have turned his head around to see the President as he described.

    "At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
     reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to
     me completely different in sound than the first report and
     were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be
     practically no time element between them. It looked to me
     as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
     head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed
     because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward
     and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head.
     The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at
     the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his
     left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the
     time of the first report and the last.

Here Hickey seems to me to be describing the sound of the rifle report and the impact to the head as "two shots" ("in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them"). The "hair on the right side of his head flew forward" is the explosion of debris on the right side of the President's head captured in Z313. It was 4.9 sec between the Z220s and Z313.

You, on the other hand, see something Hickey couldn't possibly see. Only because it "shoehorns" into your wacky Ash-Heap Pet Theory. I'll bring forward this from earlier ...

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH)  (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg)

Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

Hickey is clearly describing what happened to the head on impact. ... But nice try. ;)

Quote
The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay.  He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.

Now you're talking about this ...

(https://i.ibb.co/cL4FB13/Sketch-Up-Analysis-of-Greer-head-in-Altgens.png)

And what I wrote regarding it: Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.

You believe "Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot", a shot in your scenario occuring at ca.Z272. So Greer must be facing forward prior to the Z270s, including the Altgens photo at Z255.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1_3ZH3sJenfoA-VC2XIjhhnaHmzSlsIBw)

Yet the Zapruder film--when it begins to reveal Greer's head clearly in the late-Z270s--shows Greer already faced fully backward. By the Z280--when you claim Greer first turned his head sharply backward in reaction to your Z272 shot--Greer is not initiating a backward head turn, but instead is coming out of a backward head turn.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 07, 2023, 04:44:24 PM
Tom Dillard was sitting a few feet in front of Jackson. Reitzes writes:

    "Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News, said, "the three [shots
      were] approximately equally spaced." (6H163-64) In 1986
     Dillard told Richard Trask, "As distinct as I know I'm talking
     to you, I'm as convinced there were three clear shots. [snip]
     I thought they were fairly evenly spaced." (Trask, pp. 440-41)
          (My abridgement)

Dillard is one of 10 witnesses who gave statements that were available to the WC indicating that the shots were about equally spaced.  Keep in mind that immediately after the shots he was trying to take a photo of the window from which Bob Jackson said he saw a rifle being withdrawn.

Quote
Linda can't see the President's right hand nor if he grabbed his throat. At least in the Z150s, she can see the President. But that's over two seconds before your first shot.
Ok. Let's discount Linda because you think the 14 year old girl was lying....

Quote
Right. Mr. Cabell had an odd sense of time (15 seconds total):

    "Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately
     10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with
     not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
     Mr. HUBERT - Two to one ratio?
     Mr. CABELL - Approximately that. And again I say that, as you
     mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn't tell you the
     exact seconds because they were not counted."

And he said he wasn't actually counting off the seconds between either of the spans.
You conveniently omitted the question he was asked, which was:


Quote
I don't quite see how that describes the spanning between the three shots. Could have been three evenly-spaced shots.
Ok. I'll break the sentence: ""Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession." down for you:  "Then a moment" refers to a pause after the first shot. "and then two more shots" refers to two shots occurring after the "moment".  "in rapid succession." refers to the spacing between the last two shots indicating that they occurred without the pause that occurred for a moment after the first shot and before the next.
Quote
So you don't know if the string actually represents a specific sequence of shots.
So you don't know how to recognize sarcasm.
Quote
Here's how the use of Sneed affects Dave's tally:
  • Shots One-and-Two Closer Together ... 2
  • Shots Evenly-Spaced ... 8*
  • Shots Two-and-Three Closer Together ... 5
You haven't got much to complain about.
It is not just Sneed.  Reitzes uses statements in several other much later sources such as O'Donnell's book (1972), Zeliger (1992), CNN (2003), Trost/Bennett (2003), Turner (2001), Biffle (2000), Weisberg (1976), Savage (1993), Mark Lane (1968), Thompson (1967) and Trask (1994).

Quote
Unlike what he said to Sneed, Moore's 1964 statement says nothing about the shot-spacing. You just think you can make it fit using your bias of shot-spacing.
I don't count TE Moore as a 1......2...3 witness.  He just mentioned hearing the last two after hearing the first.  I just pointed out that he said that the first shot occurred much later (by the time JFK reached the Thornton sign), which means the first shot did not miss.

Quote
Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".
So it is just an interesting coincidence that only JFK's hair on the right side flies up about 2 seconds before the head shot, just as Hickey described but, you say, did not see.  Just a lucky guess?

Quote
Yet the Zapruder film--when it begins to reveal Greer's head clearly in the late-Z270s--shows Greer already faced fully backward. By the Z280--when you claim Greer first turned his head sharply backward in reaction to your Z272 shot--Greer is not initiating a backward head turn, but instead is coming out of a backward head turn.
He is still turning rearward after z283 and does not come out of the rearward head turn until z291.  Here it is in slow motion:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Greer_first_turn.gif)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 06, 2023, 08:55:54 PM
It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.

So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/c0/a6/QHDze5Mo_o.jpg)


You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.

Actually, the full set of photos that is available in the National Archives contains captions.  The captions explain that the cars represent the locations of the President's car when shots one, two and three were fired. The strings show the trajectories from the SN at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0124.jpg) (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460632)
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0122.jpg) (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460632)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 06, 2023, 09:51:08 PM
Actually, the full set of photos that is available in the National Archives contains captions.  The captions explain that the cars represent the locations of the President's car when shots one, two and three were fired. The strings show the trajectories from the SN at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0124.jpg) (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460632)
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0122.jpg) (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460632)

Since they have the head shot at either Z290 or the Z340s, you have to wonder if they had a surveyor or other expert place the strings. Or was it some kind of good-faith best-estimate thing. The Z-frames in the Hearings start at Z171, meaning the Commission apparently didn't think the first shot occurred prior to that.

Did you notice the two white cars in the foreground are even further away from the Depository than they are in photos of the model from the Museum? I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on. Also risky to base a theory on eyewitness reconstruction.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 06, 2023, 10:49:59 PM
Since they have the head shot at either Z290 or the Z340s, you have to wonder if they had a surveyor or other expert place the strings. Or was it some kind of good-faith best-estimate thing. The Z-frames in the Hearings start at Z171, meaning the Commission apparently didn't think the first shot occurred prior to that.

Did you notice the two white cars in the foreground are even further away from the Depository than they are in photos of the model from the Museum? I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on. Also risky to base a theory on eyewitness reconstruction.

I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on.

I agree
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 07, 2023, 10:25:58 PM
I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on.

I agree
Three points:

1. The model shows that Jerry's pejorative rejection ("bats__t crazy") of my "theory" that the first shot occurred between z190 and z200 when the car was between the lamp post and the Thornton Freeway sign ie. here:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_SN_after_tree.JPG)
is, in fact, rejection of a serious working hypothesis of the FBI and WC - at least in January 1964.

2. The model shows that it is quite reasonable that a shot at that time from the SN through JFK's neck exiting on a right-to-left downward trajectory would go to the left side of JBC's jump seat.  With JBC turned to the right was he was from z190-200, the bullet could easily have missed the right side of his torso and implanted itself butt-first in the thigh.
 (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0121_closeup2.jpg)

3. It shows that Arlen Specter's demonstration of the trajectory:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/specter_kennedy.jpg)
is not consistent at all with the actual trajectory from the SN through JFK at any time while the car was passing along Elm St. before JFK shows signs of having been hit in the neck.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 09, 2023, 01:55:05 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ce/43/DbkHV09t_o.jpg)

My 3D modelling of Z195 shows a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat would strike Connally in the back. Also the foliage was in the way. Oh well.

Mason, have you considered presenting your not-a-theory to the Dallas media? Probably some plans there for the 60th anniversary. The definitive answer to the assassination should interest them.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 09, 2023, 03:05:32 PM
Jerry:
I am not sure how or why you think this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_from_SN.JPG)

is the same seating position as this:

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 09, 2023, 04:19:42 PM
Jerry:
I am not sure how or why you think this:
is the same seating position as this:

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Robert_Croft_photo_showing_JFK%27s_car_on_Elm_Street.jpg)

The full photo by Robert Croft of the limousine at frame 161 of the Zapruder film.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1X2yb5u7l9CuouFDagDZdn4ytbyi3emDW)

Here's a model of how they sat in the Croft Photo (except I haven't rotated Connally's shoulders). The HSCA had 24" between Kennedy's exit wound at the throat and Connally's entry wound in the right axilla region.

If one uses this model to slide "Connally" over to his right so he's no longer inboard relative to Kennedy, then he will not appear as he does in the Z161.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1gf46u9lf_qha52FGD2oNvb4HUi8AyBZu)
The Zapruder frame corresponding to the Croft Photo.
  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZzOxJVXfcigIKhKEHdTcmn96XqNnSSIV)
Z193, the clearest frame in the Z190s.

There's no major change in where Connally is seated between Z161 and Z193. That's about two seconds.

The FBI conducted a frame-by-frame recreation for the WC in May 1964. They allowed for the differences in the use of the "Queen Mary" stretch-limo used in the recreation and the X-100 Presidential limousine seen in the Z-film. They were convinced Connally was inboard relative to Kennedy.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1qOivy7ADmBc9oZ6W5WrJVc89AT4gH2mc)

Dale K. Myers did a 3D study some years ago.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=15NCfsX8JBv-oVUML4v2ZQ5k8fX_itxlc)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1A49RRn4EA4Y1ia6HHSBfJ7IAxPDOa3ZT)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 09, 2023, 06:47:26 PM


There's no major change in where Connally is seated between Z161 and Z193. That's about two seconds.
You are avoiding answering the question.  You need to make your positions in your 3D model as shown here:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_from_SN.JPG)
when viewed from Zapruder's position (without making any change whatsoever to the model) look like this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

If you find the resolution too difficult to work with, then compare your positions to the positions they were in on Houston Street:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Limo_Houston.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 10, 2023, 12:20:18 AM
You are avoiding answering the question.  You need to make your positions in your 3D model as shown here:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_from_SN.JPG)
when viewed from Zapruder's position (without making any change whatsoever to the model) look like this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

You ought to restore that cropped image of my model to its full context ...

(https://images2.imgbox.com/ce/43/DbkHV09t_o.jpg)

The inset scenes of the model are from the same SketchUp 3D model. One limousine. One Plaza. One set of human figures. It's for Z195. It's saved in it's own unique file. Nothing changed between camera-scenes.

No changes made in the figure models that appear in the inset pictures, if that's what you're implying. You really think I'm that dishonest?

Here is an older model, with low-count facets, but showing Z193.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o0LuEMpYSgKD94qdJ8IPlptdsBsD3LEa)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1JvG8Y39MlQMOty_TKQGpbGSX2SfDqkkr)

Quote
If you find the resolution too difficult to work with, then compare your positions to the positions they were in on Houston Street:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Limo_Houston.jpg)

That is not a picture of the limousine on Houston Street. It was taken on Main Street. And we have already noted that the positions of the two men in that photo were not typical of most other photos taken during the motorcade and in Dealey Plaza prior to emerging from behind the sign (ie: Z227ff).

(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/41/S0U9kTX8_o.jpg)

That is the limousine on Houston Street in the lowest inset of the assembly graphic above. If Connally really sat more directly in front of Kennedy, he would be more in line with Kellerman when seen in such a low left-diagonal view. But because Connally is inboard, his head is not evenly spaced between Kennedy and Kellerman, but is partially obscuring Kellerman's head from the camera.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1X2yb5u7l9CuouFDagDZdn4ytbyi3emDW)

My model of the Croft Photo demonstrated that the inboard position of Connally relative to Kennedy matched that seen in the Houston Street photo taken by Altgens (lower-right insets).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 10, 2023, 08:44:45 PM
You ought to restore that cropped image of my model to its full context ...

The inset scenes of the model are from the same SketchUp 3D model. One limousine. One Plaza. One set of human figures. It's for Z195. It's saved in it's own unique file. Nothing changed between camera-scenes.

No changes made in the figure models that appear in the inset pictures, if that's what you're implying. You really think I'm that dishonest?
Jerry, you are saying that the men in this position, with JBC turned to the right so that his shoulders are square to Zapruder:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_195_3D.JPG) or
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

are in the same position as this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JOz195_side.JPG)

in which JBC is facing forward.  In z195 (I am using a clearer view in z193) he was turned to the right.  Earlier (z153) he was turned forward:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z153.jpg)

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 10, 2023, 09:38:54 PM
Jerry, you are saying that the men in this position, with JBC turned to the right so that his shoulders are square to Zapruder:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_195_3D.JPG) or
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

are in the same position as this:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JOz195_side.JPG)

in which JBC is facing forward.  In z195 (I am using a clearer view in z193) he was turned to the right.  Earlier (z153) he was turned forward:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z153.jpg)

I see now. With regard to the shoulders of Connally, it appears this is how I showed Connally's torso (neutral) in Croft and repeated it in the Z195 model. I don't see it being a big deal. I will probably rotate the shoulders similar to Myers' version for Z193 and allow for a part of the shoulder ball to project back over the seatback, as Myers has done. Your amount of rotation, shown (left-inset) in the graphic following, is ridiculous.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1A49RRn4EA4Y1ia6HHSBfJ7IAxPDOa3ZT)

The key reference points are where the heads of Kennedy and Connally are relative to how they appear in the Zapruder film.

In the SBT model, I have rotated the shoulders, but it's not known how similar it is to Z195 but it is a different amount. I would have to try different degrees of rotation for Z195, export each one in an image file, adjust the photo-size and overlay it onto Z193 (since it's clearer, it fills in for Z195 as far as Connally and the side-window). One thing that can't change is where Connally's head is, which in turns defines his position as inboard relative to Kennedy.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/04/8STJSsPW_o.jpg)  (https://images2.imgbox.com/91/1d/uwiEZsww_o.jpg)

I would be farther along with some of this 3D work if I hadn't taken time out for such things as modelling your Z271 shot.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 11, 2023, 03:02:58 AM
I see now. With regard to the shoulders of Connally, it appears this is how I showed Connally's torso (neutral) in Croft and repeated it in the Z195 model. I don't see it being a big deal. I will probably rotate the shoulders similar to Myers' version for Z193 and allow for a part of the shoulder ball to project back over the seatback, as Myers has done.
I can't tell if you have JBC turned enough in your recreation of frame z195 (the view from Zapruder's position) because the resolution is not sufficient.  But it looks very similar to his position in z193.

If so, you don't have to change anything in your model. Just rotate the view so we can see the two men up close from overhead and from the SN.

Quote
Your amount of rotation, shown (left-inset) in the graphic following, is ridiculous.
In my model the shoulders are over-rotated in order to get the lower back turned. But the bullet from the SN through JFK's midline passes just over the back of the jump seat which is well below the shoulder level.
..
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 04, 2023, 01:04:57 PM
Just giving this thread a bump to reinforce the point that lone-gunman theorists have no even halfway credible/believable explanation for the two bullet fragments in the very back of JFK's skull. Their own leading wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the ammo that Oswald allegedly used would not and could not have deposited bullet fragments in or near the rear outer table of the skull, especially given the fact that the nose and tail of the supposed lone-gunman head-shot bullet were found in the limousine, which means that any fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section.

I devote an entire chapter to this issue in my book A Comforting Lie.

I also address it in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view)).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 04, 2023, 03:13:46 PM
Just giving this thread a bump to reinforce the point that lone-gunman theorists have no even halfway credible/believable explanation for the two bullet fragments in the very back of JFK's skull. Their own leading wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the ammo that Oswald allegedly used would not and could not have deposited bullet fragments in or near the rear outer table of the skull, especially given the fact that the nose and tail of the supposed lone-gunman head-shot bullet were found in the limousine, which means that any fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section.

I devote an entire chapter to this issue in my book A Comforting Lie.

I also address it in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view)).
Everything that u have ever said about anything has been complete krapp.
The lead fragments in xray in jfk's galea were from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet offa the guy rod of the overhead signals at Z105.
The 2 brass fragments of the jacket   were from Oswald's shot-1.
My comments on threads are 100% correct.
Your comments are 100% wrong.
The fragments in galea do not & can not sink the LNer theory.
The LNer theory is sunk by other facts/evidence, but it aint sunk by the galea fragments.
SHHEEEESHHHHHHHHHHH.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 04, 2023, 04:47:33 PM
Everything that u have ever said about anything has been complete krapp.
The lead fragments in xray in jfk's galea were from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet offa the guy rod of the overhead signals at Z105.
The 2 brass fragments of the jacket   were from Oswald's shot-1.
My comments on threads are 100% correct.
Your comments are 100% wrong.
The fragments in galea do not & can not sink the LNer theory.
The LNer theory is sunk by other facts/evidence, but it aint sunk by the galea fragments.
SHHEEEESHHHHHHHHHHH.

Only one of the back-of-head fragments was in the galea (the McDonnel fragment).

I believe I've explained to you before the various problems with your guy-rod-deflection theory, such as the fact (1) that the angle of fire would have been virtually straight down, (2) that no gunman would have fired when an obstruction was near his target in his field of view, and (3) that JFK shows no signs of reaction until long after your posited guy-rod-deflection shot.

I do agree with you that the galea fragment could only have come from a ricochet fragment, but that fragment could not have come from a bullet fired at Z105. The lone-gunman theory has no bullet that could have produced such a ricochet fragment.

The Hickey-shot theory is nearly as problematic as the lone-gunman theory. No one who was in Hickey's car, including Powers and O'Donnell, heard Hickey fire a single shot. Have you ever heard an AR-15 fired? I have. The other occupants in the car would have heard Hickey fire a shot, if he had fired one. Plus, Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 04, 2023, 11:31:54 PM
Only one of the back-of-head fragments was in the galea (the McDonnel fragment).

I believe I've explained to you before the various problems with your guy-rod-deflection theory, such as the fact (1) that the angle of fire would have been virtually straight down, (2) that no gunman would have fired when an obstruction was near his target in his field of view, and (3) that JFK shows no signs of reaction until long after your posited guy-rod-deflection shot.

I do agree with you that the galea fragment could only have come from a ricochet fragment, but that fragment could not have come from a bullet fired at Z105. The lone-gunman theory has no bullet that could have produced such a ricochet fragment.

The Hickey-shot theory is nearly as problematic as the lone-gunman theory. No one who was in Hickey's car, including Powers and O'Donnell, heard Hickey fire a single shot. Have you ever heard an AR-15 fired? I have. The other occupants in the car would have heard Hickey fire a shot, if he had fired one. Plus, Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting.
My calculation of Oswald's angles based on above is .....
Shot-1 at Z113 is -34.8 deg. If at Holland's Z106 it is still -34.8 deg koz either way it is at the signals.
Shot-2 at Z218 is -21.0 deg.
Shot-3 at Z312 is -16.6 deg (but there was no Oswald shot-3).
So, how is 34.8 deg "straight down"?
34.8 deg is only 13.8 deg more than shot-2's 21.0 deg!

Kellerman heard jfk say my god i am hit at say pseudo Z120.
And Towner footage shows jfk with his right hand high up near his head (ie possibly reacting to getting hit in the galea) at about Z113. Alltho i suppose that jfk sometimes held his right hand hi up when waving.

Re the galea fragment, i thort that the xray showed a number of fragments in galea. But i have not spent time trying to understand the xrays. I simply quote others. Certainly u know more than me re xray stuff.
Are u referring to the 6.5 mm circular fragment? Its strange that this is the same dia as a Carcano slug. I believe that it is possible to get a Carcano bullet that has a brass end on the tail of the slug (in addition to having a brass jacket), in which case if that brass-end tears off (ie due to ricochet) then it could give that kind of fragment.

I did see a target board that showed how a Carcano ricochet off pipe gave 3 angles. Remnant slug took one angle. 2 brass halves of FMJ took another angle. And lead splatter took another angle.
All of which confirms a ricochet off the signal arm or guy-rod.
All of which confirms CE567 & CE569 (2 brass halves)(FMJ is made in 2 halves fused together to receive the lead).
All of which confirms xray splatter in galea.
But i cant find that photo of the target board. I think it is in the NOVA youtube. Would cost me $4 to do a screenprint.

That Hickey fired an autoburst is a certainty. That SS Agents etc in Queen Mary heard it is a certainty. That they lied is a certainty (except that Powers did not lie)(Powers chose his words carefully, he merely said that if Hickey fired then Powers would have heard the shot(s), which is a fact, but the inference that Hickey did not shoot is of course a lie).

Re the sound of an AR15. I wonder whether a 12 gauge shotgun is louder. I have done a bit of duck & rabbit shooting with shotguns.
http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2002-0131-2898.pdf

Anyhow, not only did Hickey shoot a president out of season without a permit (he should have forfeited his AR15) , but he was not wearing earmuffs (he should have been fired from the SS).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 05, 2023, 12:28:42 PM
My calculation of Oswald's angles based on above is .....
Shot-1 at Z113 is -34.8 deg. If at Holland's Z106 it is still -34.8 deg koz either way it is at the signals.
Shot-2 at Z218 is -21.0 deg.
Shot-3 at Z312 is -16.6 deg (but there was no Oswald shot-3).
So, how is 34.8 deg "straight down"?
34.8 deg is only 13.8 deg more than shot-2's 21.0 deg!

Kellerman heard jfk say my god i am hit at say pseudo Z120.
And Towner footage shows jfk with his right hand high up near his head (ie possibly reacting to getting hit in the galea) at about Z113. Alltho i suppose that jfk sometimes held his right hand hi up when waving.

Re the galea fragment, i thort that the xray showed a number of fragments in galea. But i have not spent time trying to understand the xrays. I simply quote others. Certainly u know more than me re xray stuff.
Are u referring to the 6.5 mm circular fragment? Its strange that this is the same dia as a Carcano slug. I believe that it is possible to get a Carcano bullet that has a brass end on the tail of the slug (in addition to having a brass jacket), in which case if that brass-end tears off (ie due to ricochet) then it could give that kind of fragment.

I did see a target board that showed how a Carcano ricochet off pipe gave 3 angles. Remnant slug took one angle. 2 brass halves of FMJ took another angle. And lead splatter took another angle.
All of which confirms a ricochet off the signal arm or guy-rod.
All of which confirms CE567 & CE569 (2 brass halves)(FMJ is made in 2 halves fused together to receive the lead).
All of which confirms xray splatter in galea.
But i cant find that photo of the target board. I think it is in the NOVA youtube. Would cost me $4 to do a screenprint.

That Hickey fired an autoburst is a certainty. That SS Agents etc in Queen Mary heard it is a certainty. That they lied is a certainty (except that Powers did not lie)(Powers chose his words carefully, he merely said that if Hickey fired then Powers would have heard the shot(s), which is a fact, but the inference that Hickey did not shoot is of course a lie).

Re the sound of an AR15. I wonder whether a 12 gauge shotgun is louder. I have done a bit of duck & rabbit shooting with shotguns.
http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2002-0131-2898.pdf

Anyhow, not only did Hickey shoot a president out of season without a permit (he should have forfeited his AR15) , but he was not wearing earmuffs (he should have been fired from the SS).

Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.

You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).

As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.

I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.

I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 05, 2023, 01:41:13 PM
Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.
DO THE MATH YOURSELF.

You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).
YOUR COMMENTS MAKE NO SENSE.

As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.
U MIGHT BE CORRECT HERE. I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY FRAGMENTS WERE IN XRAY IN THE GALEA.

I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.
SO, WHEN DO U THINK KELLERMAN HEARD I AM HIT?
YES JFK ACTS NORMAL. HE REALIZES THAT HE IS NOT DEAD, EVEN THO HE HAS BEEN BADLY STUNG ON THE RIGHT TOP OF HIS HEAD. AND HE KEEPS SMILING. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT JACKIE & CONNALLY AINT SMILING.
NO, HIS WAVING MOTION IS NOT AFFECTED AS HE DISAPPEARS BEHIND THE SIGN, AND THEN HE CAN BE SEEN AT ABOUT Z224 WHERE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT (AT Z218).

I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.
I NEVER SAID THAT POWERS LIED. I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT "LIED IN THE WC" BIT.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 05, 2023, 01:56:08 PM
Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.
DO THE MATH YOURSELF.

You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).
YOUR COMMENTS MAKE NO SENSE.

As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.
U MIGHT BE CORRECT HERE. I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY FRAGMENTS WERE IN XRAY IN THE GALEA.

I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.
SO, WHEN DO U THINK KELLERMAN HEARD I AM HIT?
YES JFK ACTS NORMAL. HE REALIZES THAT HE IS NOT DEAD, EVEN THO HE HAS BEEN BADLY STUNG ON THE RIGHT TOP OF HIS HEAD. AND HE KEEPS SMILING. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT JACKIE & CONNALLY AINT SMILING.
NO, HIS WAVING MOTION IS NOT AFFECTED AS HE DISAPPEARS BEHIND THE SIGN, AND THEN HE CAN BE SEEN AT ABOUT Z224 WHERE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT (AT Z218).

I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.
I NEVER SAID THAT POWERS LIED. I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT "LIED IN THE WC" BIT.

Look, your theory utterly collapses on several points. For example, as I've noted, anyone can look at the Zapruder film and see that JFK is acting normal from the time he comes into clear view in Z160 until at least 28 frames later. During this time span, he shows no signs of any reaction to anything abnormal or painful. He looks calm and casual. This fact alone destroys your scenario.

It makes complete sense that no gunman would have fired when a metal pole was near his target in his field of view. It makes no sense to believe otherwise. Have you ever fired at a target with a rifle? If you were aiming at, say, a rabbit and as you panned and tracked the rabbit a large tree branch appeared near the rabbit, are you telling me you would fire? Really? I qualified at all three marksmanship levels in the Army and did some hunting. Even a relative novice would have enough common sense not to fire at his target if an intervening object was near his target in his field of view.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 05, 2023, 02:14:23 PM
Look, your theory utterly collapses on several points. For example, as I've noted, anyone can look at the Zapruder film and see that JFK is acting normal from the time he comes into clear view in Z160 until at least 28 frames later. During this time span, he shows no signs of any reaction to anything abnormal or painful. He looks calm and casual. This fact alone destroys your scenario.
HE IS SMILING DESPITE BEING STUNG AT Z105.

It makes complete sense that no gunman would have fired when a metal pole was near his target in his field of view. It makes no sense to believe otherwise. Have you ever fired at a target with a rifle? If you were aiming at, say, a rabbit and as you panned and tracked the rabbit a large tree branch appeared near the rabbit, are you telling me you would fire? Really? I qualified at all three marksmanship levels in the Army and did some hunting. Even a relative novice would have enough common sense not to fire at his target if an intervening object was near his target in his field of view.
YES OSWALD SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE SKINNY LITTLE PUNY SIGNAL ARM COULD BE POSSIBLY IN HIS WAY. BUT HE DIDNT, OR IGNORED THAT.
OR, WORSE, THAT THE BIG LARGE SET OF SIGNALS & BACKBOARD COULD BE POSSIBLY IN HIS WAY.

WHAT WOULD U HAVE DONE IF U WERE OSWALD? WOULD U HAVE FIRED WHILE JFK WAS TURNING INTO ELM?
AT LEAST OSWALD REALIZED THAT THE 2 OR 3 TREES PARTIALLY BLOCKED HIS SHOTS FOR A WHILE.

AND HE GOT A BULLSEYE AT Z218. PROBLY FATAL.
AND DID NOT FIRE HIS LAST (THIRD) BULLET.



Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 05, 2023, 03:16:32 PM
Look, your theory utterly collapses on several points. For example, as I've noted, anyone can look at the Zapruder film and see that JFK is acting normal from the time he comes into clear view in Z160 until at least 28 frames later. During this time span, he shows no signs of any reaction to anything abnormal or painful. He looks calm and casual. This fact alone destroys your scenario.
HE IS SMILING DESPITE BEING STUNG AT Z105.

It makes complete sense that no gunman would have fired when a metal pole was near his target in his field of view. It makes no sense to believe otherwise. Have you ever fired at a target with a rifle? If you were aiming at, say, a rabbit and as you panned and tracked the rabbit a large tree branch appeared near the rabbit, are you telling me you would fire? Really? I qualified at all three marksmanship levels in the Army and did some hunting. Even a relative novice would have enough common sense not to fire at his target if an intervening object was near his target in his field of view.
YES OSWALD SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE SKINNY LITTLE PUNY SIGNAL ARM COULD BE POSSIBLY IN HIS WAY. BUT HE DIDNT, OR IGNORED THAT.
OR, WORSE, THAT THE BIG LARGE SET OF SIGNALS & BACKBOARD COULD BE POSSIBLY IN HIS WAY.

WHAT WOULD U HAVE DONE IF U WERE OSWALD? WOULD U HAVE FIRED WHILE JFK WAS TURNING INTO ELM?
AT LEAST OSWALD REALIZED THAT THE 2 OR 3 TREES PARTIALLY BLOCKED HIS SHOTS FOR A WHILE.

AND HE GOT A BULLSEYE AT Z218. PROBLY FATAL.
AND DID NOT FIRE HIS LAST (THIRD) BULLET.

So JFK keeps smiling after several pieces of metal have hit him in the back of the head and hit him hard enough to penetrate into the outer table and hard enough to penetrate into the galea?! Seriously?! This is absurd. Ludicrous. He would have known immediately that something deadly serious was happening and would not have kept smiling and waving. This is where your theory abjectly collapses and implodes. It's downright bizarre to think that JFK would have kept smiling and waving after having several pieces of hot metal hit him in the back of the head hard enough to embed themselves in the outer table and the galea. Come on. Get serious.

You're still buying the Oswald myth? Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor during the shooting. He was downstairs on the first and second floor. Two people--Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles-- were on the stairs during the time frame when Oswald would have had to dash down those stairs to have any chance of being in the second-floor lunchroom to be seen by Officer Baker through the vestibule door, and without being seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Officer Baker. Neither lady saw Oswald on the stairs.

Crucially, we now know that Victoria Adams' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, told authorities that she saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. This confirms Adams' original statement to the FBI that she left the window on the fourth floor 15-30 seconds after the shooting. There's no way that Adams and Styles could have missed seeing Oswald on the stairs if he had come down the stairs from the sixth floor. Barry Ernest wrote a whole book on this historic evidence titled The Girl on the Stairs.

I repeat that Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting, and no one in the follow-up car heard him fire a shot. Again, when O'Donnell and Powers later spilled the beans about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, there is no conceivable reason they would not have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if he'd done so, since both men were very critical of the Secret Service's performance during the assassination.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 05, 2023, 10:56:34 PM
So JFK keeps smiling after several pieces of metal have hit him in the back of the head and hit him hard enough to penetrate into the outer table and hard enough to penetrate into the galea?! Seriously?! This is absurd. Ludicrous. He would have known immediately that something deadly serious was happening and would not have kept smiling and waving. This is where your theory abjectly collapses and implodes. It's downright bizarre to think that JFK would have kept smiling and waving after having several pieces of hot metal hit him in the back of the head hard enough to embed themselves in the outer table and the galea. Come on. Get serious.

You're still buying the Oswald myth? Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor during the shooting. He was downstairs on the first and second floor. Two people--Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles-- were on the stairs during the time frame when Oswald would have had to dash down those stairs to have any chance of being in the second-floor lunchroom to be seen by Officer Baker through the vestibule door, and without being seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Officer Baker. Neither lady saw Oswald on the stairs.

Crucially, we now know that Victoria Adams' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, told authorities that she saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. This confirms Adams' original statement to the FBI that she left the window on the fourth floor 15-30 seconds after the shooting. There's no way that Adams and Styles could have missed seeing Oswald on the stairs if he had come down the stairs from the sixth floor. Barry Ernest wrote a whole book on this historic evidence titled The Girl on the Stairs.

I repeat that Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting, and no one in the follow-up car heard him fire a shot. Again, when O'Donnell and Powers later spilled the beans about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, there is no conceivable reason they would not have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if he'd done so, since both men were very critical of the Secret Service's performance during the assassination.
I thort that the bits of lead in the galea were very small. JFK must have thort after a few seconds & after wiping his head that it had been a firework.
So, koz he ignored shot-1, jfk was doomed.
Did he ever get any instruction to duck down when there was any hint of trouble? I dont think so!

I have explained the movements of Oswald Adams & Garner. And Hine.
 https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2947.0.html

I have not seen any record of any accounting of AR15 ammo etc. Except that SSA Floyd Boring said that he himself checked the AR15 later. This was either that night, or next day.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 06, 2023, 01:12:05 PM
I thort that the bits of lead in the galea were very small. JFK must have thort after a few seconds & after wiping his head that it had been a firework.

I find it hard to take you seriously when you float such utter nonsense. The painful sting of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's penetration into the outer table of the skull alone would have alerted JFK that something deadly serious was going on. Even the penetration of the small fragment into the galea would have been palpabale and would have alerted JFK that something dangerously unusual was happening. There is now way he would have been casually smiling and waving after the penetration of those two fragments.


I have explained the movements of Oswald Adams & Garner. And Hine.
 https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2947.0.html

Your explanation is riddled with errors and faulty assumptions. The WC's reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements was a joke that ignored every problematic element of his alleged actions and key elements of Baker and Truly's actions.

Since Garner saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Truly and Baker coming up the stairs, and since Truly was running ahead of Baker on the stairs, WC apologists need to explain how Oswald could have already been in the second-floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand when he encountered Baker (1) without being seen by Adams and Styles on the stairs, (2) without Jack Dougherty hearing him on the fifth-floor stairs, and (3) without Truly seeing him dash across the second-floor landing to enter the lunchroom (and to enter the lunchroom in time to buy a Coke from the soda machine before Baker confronted him). I'll save you some time and trouble: It's impossible.

The Baker-Oswald Encounter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view?usp=sharing)

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
See section titled "Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting" (pp. 27-30)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 06, 2023, 02:46:34 PM
I find it hard to take you seriously when you float such utter nonsense. The painful sting of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's penetration into the outer table of the skull alone would have alerted JFK that something deadly serious was going on. Even the penetration of the small fragment into the galea would have been palpabale and would have alerted JFK that something dangerously unusual was happening. There is now way he would have been casually smiling and waving after the penetration of those two fragments.

Your explanation is riddled with errors and faulty assumptions. The WC's reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements was a joke that ignored every problematic element of his alleged actions and key elements of Baker and Truly's actions.

Since Garner saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Truly and Baker coming up the stairs, and since Truly was running ahead of Baker on the stairs, WC apologists need to explain how Oswald could have already been in the second-floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand when he encountered Baker (1) without being seen by Adams and Styles on the stairs, (2) without Jack Dougherty hearing him on the fifth-floor stairs, and (3) without Truly seeing him dash across the second-floor landing to enter the lunchroom (and to enter the lunchroom in time to buy a Coke from the soda machine before Baker confronted him). I'll save you some time and trouble: It's impossible.

The Baker-Oswald Encounter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view?usp=sharing)

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
See section titled "Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting" (pp. 27-30)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing)
I think that u have confused the fragments. No fragments were taken from the galea. The galea had small lead splatter only.

Re the Oswald etc timings, my description is perfect, & works.
I threw in the movements of Hines too, she entered the door to her office a couple of seconds before Oswald approached the lunchroom.
Oswald did not have a coke in his  hand, he got the coke after Baker left.
Dougherty might have been somewhere on the 5th floor when Oswald passed throo the 5th floor, but Dougherty was not necessarily near the stairs in a position to see Oswald.
We know that Dougherty was in front of the elevators 4 minutes later when the trapdoor on the roof slammed shut in the wind (Dougherty thort that it was a shot).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 06, 2023, 03:54:28 PM
I think that u have confused the fragments. No fragments were taken from the galea. The galea had small lead splatter only.

Re the Oswald etc timings, my description is perfect, & works.
I threw in the movements of Hines too, she entered the door to her office a couple of seconds before Oswald approached the lunchroom.
Oswald did not have a coke in his  hand, he got the coke after Baker left.
Dougherty might have been somewhere on the 5th floor when Oswald passed throo the 5th floor, but Dougherty was not necessarily near the stairs in a position to see Oswald.
We know that Dougherty was in front of the elevators 4 minutes later when the trapdoor on the roof slammed shut in the wind (Dougherty thort that it was a shot).

You are totally confused--or are deflecting. I did not say that any fragments were removed from the galea, and the galea fragment--the McDonnel fragment--was not just "small lead splatter." You still have not read my first few posts in this thread, have you? What about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the outer table? I notice you ignored it--again. You don't seem to understand, or are simply refusing to acknowledge, the back-of-head fragments that must be explained.

Do you have any idea how painful it would be to have even a "small lead splatter," much less the McDonnel fragment, hit your head hard enough to go through your scalp, through your outer table, and into your galea? Take the thinnest needle you can find and try pushing it into your head hard enough to penetrate through your scalp and outer table and into your galea--I guarantee you that it will hurt, that it will cause a painful sting.

Or, try taking a somewhat wider needle and push it into your head hard enough to go through your scalp and into your outer table. I promise you that it will cause an even more painful jab.

So enough with this nonsense that after JFK had a fragment penetrate into his galea and another fragment penetrate into his outer table, he did not react and even kept on smiling and waving. This is an unserious, absurd idea.

Oswald bought the coke before Baker saw him. Read the articles I cited.

Your explanation of Oswald's movements and timing does not even remotely work. It is loaded with specious, forced assumptions that you are compelled to make in order to try to get Oswald into the second-floor lunchroom without being seen or heard on the stairs and without being seen on the second-floor landing by Truly. Again, read the articles I cited.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 07, 2023, 12:19:05 AM
You are totally confused--or are deflecting. I did not say that any fragments were removed from the galea, and the galea fragment--the McDonnel fragment--was not just "small lead splatter." You still have not read my first few posts in this thread, have you? What about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the outer table? I notice you ignored it--again. You don't seem to understand, or are simply refusing to acknowledge, the back-of-head fragments that must be explained.

Do you have any idea how painful it would be to have even a "small lead splatter," much less the McDonnel fragment, hit your head hard enough to go through your scalp, through your outer table, and into your galea? Take the thinnest needle you can find and try pushing it into your head hard enough to penetrate through your scalp and outer table and into your galea--I guarantee you that it will hurt, that it will cause a painful sting.

Or, try taking a somewhat wider needle and push it into your head hard enough to go through your scalp and into your outer table. I promise you that it will cause an even more painful jab.

So enough with this nonsense that after JFK had a fragment penetrate into his galea and another fragment penetrate into his outer table, he did not react and even kept on smiling and waving. This is an unserious, absurd idea.

Oswald bought the coke before Baker saw him. Read the articles I cited.

Your explanation of Oswald's movements and timing does not even remotely work. It is loaded with specious, forced assumptions that you are compelled to make in order to try to get Oswald into the second-floor lunchroom without being seen or heard on the stairs and without being seen on the second-floor landing by Truly. Again, read the articles I cited.
I think that the reports said that there were a number of small fragments on the back of JFK's head (xray) outside the skull.
Even if u are correct that one of these was 6.5 by 2.5 then i dont see why this/these had to be very painful.
A blunt bang on the head can be very painful (with much swelling & bruising). But a sharp bang aint necessarily very painful.
And i dont see why these fragments could not have come from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet off the signal arm (guy rod).
The brass FMJ fragments into 2 halves.
The remnant lead slug is usually in one piece.
Except that there is always some lead splatter (& praps some brass splatter).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 07, 2023, 01:33:05 PM
I think that the reports said that there were a number of small fragments on the back of JFK's head (xray) outside the skull.

Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.

Even if u are correct that one of these was 6.5 by 2.5 then i dont see why this/these had to be very painful.
A blunt bang on the head can be very painful (with much swelling & bruising). But a sharp bang aint necessarily very painful.
And i dont see why these fragments could not have come from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet off the signal arm (guy rod).
The brass FMJ fragments into 2 halves.
The remnant lead slug is usually in one piece.
Except that there is always some lead splatter (& praps some brass splatter).

Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.

In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.

It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.

To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 07, 2023, 10:24:07 PM
Michael T. Griffith....... Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.
...........OK, IT (IF IT EXISTED) WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SKULL.

Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.
............ SO, U AGREE WITH ME, THAT IT (IF IT EXISTED) WOULD BE NOTHING LIKE A PAINFUL BLUNT BANG.
............ IT DID NOT HURT MUCH, KOZ WE KNOW THAT JFK DID NOT REACT MUCH. A QUICK STAB OF 1.5 MM OF SCALP WOULD GIVE VERY LITTLE PAIN. PENETRATION OF THE OUTER TABLE OF SKULL PROBLY GIVES VERY LITTLE PAIN. PAIN IN BONES IS PROBLY MORE OF A LONG TERM THING, AN ACHE, TO TELL U THAT ALL IS NOT WELL. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE IGNORED IF THE LARGE FRAGMENT DID NOT EXIST.
............ PUSHING A NEEDLE INTO THE SCALP & OUTER TABLE WOULD BE DIFFERENT TO THE NEEDLE IMPACTING & PENETRATING THE SAY 5MM OF SCALP & BONE IN SAY 0.00003 SEC. TRY IT & SEE HOW MUCH IT HURTS.

In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.
.................. I THINK THIS REFERS TO THE 1 BY 1 FRAGMENT. BUT I THORT THAT THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF FRAGMENTS ON THE TOP BACK RIGHT OF THE HEAD, IN XRAY.

It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.
............... DONAHUE'S RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT SHOT-1 HIT THE TARMAC, & FRAGMENTS OF SLUG HIT JFK & EMBEDDED IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD, & 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. SILLY.
............... HOLLAND'S RICOCHET THEORY WAS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 RICOCHETED & EVENTUALLY CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND. SILLY.
............... MY RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 HIT A GUY ROD, & LEAD SPLATTER HIT JFK IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD (XRAY). IF YOUR 6.5 BY 2.5 FRAGMENT EXISTED THEN FOR SURE U CAN ADD THAT TO THE SPLATTER.
................ AND MY THEORY SAYS THAT THE 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. AND THAT THE REMNANT SLUG MADE A HOLE IN THE FLOOR PAN (PHOTO).
................ JFK DID NO KEEP WAVING & SMILING. HE EXCLAIMED MY GOD I AM HIT (KELLERMAN). AND HE FELT & WIPED HIS HEAD (WITNESSES). AND REALIZING THAT HE WAS STILL BREATHING, & THAT NO-ONE ELSE SEEMED TO BE PANICKING, HE MUST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BEEN A FIREWORK CRACKER. HAD HE DUCKED DOWN THEN ALL MIGHT HAVE ENDED OK. BUT HE WAS DOOMED. PAINFUL YES. BUT LESS PAINFUL THAN U THINK.
................ OSWALD'S SHOT-1 WAS AT 34.8 DEG, NOT STRAIGHT DOWN.

To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.
.................... SHOT-1 OF HICKEY'S AUTO BURST RICOCHETED OFFA THE TARMAC & CURB, & CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 10, 2023, 11:25:01 AM
Michael T. Griffith....... Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.
...........OK, IT (IF IT EXISTED) WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SKULL.

Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.
............ SO, U AGREE WITH ME, THAT IT (IF IT EXISTED) WOULD BE NOTHING LIKE A PAINFUL BLUNT BANG.
............ IT DID NOT HURT MUCH, KOZ WE KNOW THAT JFK DID NOT REACT MUCH. A QUICK STAB OF 1.5 MM OF SCALP WOULD GIVE VERY LITTLE PAIN. PENETRATION OF THE OUTER TABLE OF SKULL PROBLY GIVES VERY LITTLE PAIN. PAIN IN BONES IS PROBLY MORE OF A LONG TERM THING, AN ACHE, TO TELL U THAT ALL IS NOT WELL. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE IGNORED IF THE LARGE FRAGMENT DID NOT EXIST.
............ PUSHING A NEEDLE INTO THE SCALP & OUTER TABLE WOULD BE DIFFERENT TO THE NEEDLE IMPACTING & PENETRATING THE SAY 5MM OF SCALP & BONE IN SAY 0.00003 SEC. TRY IT & SEE HOW MUCH IT HURTS.

In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.
.................. I THINK THIS REFERS TO THE 1 BY 1 FRAGMENT. BUT I THORT THAT THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF FRAGMENTS ON THE TOP BACK RIGHT OF THE HEAD, IN XRAY.

It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.
............... DONAHUE'S RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT SHOT-1 HIT THE TARMAC, & FRAGMENTS OF SLUG HIT JFK & EMBEDDED IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD, & 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. SILLY.
............... HOLLAND'S RICOCHET THEORY WAS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 RICOCHETED & EVENTUALLY CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND. SILLY.
............... MY RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 HIT A GUY ROD, & LEAD SPLATTER HIT JFK IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD (XRAY). IF YOUR 6.5 BY 2.5 FRAGMENT EXISTED THEN FOR SURE U CAN ADD THAT TO THE SPLATTER.
................ AND MY THEORY SAYS THAT THE 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. AND THAT THE REMNANT SLUG MADE A HOLE IN THE FLOOR PAN (PHOTO).
................ JFK DID NO KEEP WAVING & SMILING. HE EXCLAIMED MY GOD I AM HIT (KELLERMAN). AND HE FELT & WIPED HIS HEAD (WITNESSES). AND REALIZING THAT HE WAS STILL BREATHING, & THAT NO-ONE ELSE SEEMED TO BE PANICKING, HE MUST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BEEN A FIREWORK CRACKER. HAD HE DUCKED DOWN THEN ALL MIGHT HAVE ENDED OK. BUT HE WAS DOOMED. PAINFUL YES. BUT LESS PAINFUL THAN U THINK.
................ OSWALD'S SHOT-1 WAS AT 34.8 DEG, NOT STRAIGHT DOWN.

To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.
.................... SHOT-1 OF HICKEY'S AUTO BURST RICOCHETED OFFA THE TARMAC & CURB, & CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND.

This is getting sillier and sillier.

"IF" the fragment existed? HUH? Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.

This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.

Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death. Then, there are three very small fragments, one of which is also inside the image of the 6.5 mm object.

Since the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment are the two largest back-of-head fragments, and since no one disputes their existence, I have focused on them.

Regarding your comment that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's impact "would be nothing like a painful blunt bang," perhaps part of the problem here is your command of English. I've said repeatedly that the impact of that fragment would have caused a very painful, sharp stabbing sensation when it penetrated all the layers of the scalp and then hit the outer table hard enough to embed itself therein, which is why I've said you should test this yourself by getting a needle and seeing what if felt like to have a small metal surface penetrate into your table.

The term "blunt-force trauma" describes "a non-penetrating type of trauma" caused by "a dull object or surface." So, I don't know even know why you are raising the issue of a "painful blunt bang" when I've repeatedly described the pain as a sharp stabbing pain caused by the penetration of the fragment through the scalp and into the outer table.

Hickey fired no shot. You have zero evidence that he fired a shot. It's pure speculation. No one in his car said he fired a shot. He denied firing a shot. His ammo was checked and accounted for. When Hickey sued Donahue and his publisher, they opted to settle out of court. Hickey's shot could not have hit the EOP entry site, as Donahue himself documented very capably (which is why Donahue went with the spurious cowlick entry site, but that site was later soundly debunked and is now widely rejected even by lone-gunman theorists ala Sturdivan).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 10, 2023, 09:47:55 PM
This is getting sillier and sillier.

"IF" the fragment existed? HUH? Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.

This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.

Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death. Then, there are three very small fragments, one of which is also inside the image of the 6.5 mm object.

Since the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment are the two largest back-of-head fragments, and since no one disputes their existence, I have focused on them.

Regarding your comment that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's impact "would be nothing like a painful blunt bang," perhaps part of the problem here is your command of English. I've said repeatedly that the impact of that fragment would have caused a very painful, sharp stabbing sensation when it penetrated all the layers of the scalp and then hit the outer table hard enough to embed itself therein, which is why I've said you should test this yourself by getting a needle and seeing what if felt like to have a small metal surface penetrate into your table.

The term "blunt-force trauma" describes "a non-penetrating type of trauma" caused "a dull object or surface." So, I don't know even know why you are raising the issue of a "painful blunt bang" when I've repeatedly described the pain as a sharp stabbing pain caused by the penetration of the fragment through the scalp and into the outer table.

Hickey fired no shot. You have zero evidence that he fired a shot. It's pure speculation. No one in his car said he fired a shot. He denied firing a shot. His ammo was checked and accounted for. When Hickey sued Donahue and his publisher, they opted to settle out of court. Hickey's shot could not have hit the EOP entry site, as Donahue himself documented very capably (which is why Donahue went with the spurious cowlick entry site, but that site was later soundly debunked and is now widely rejected even by lone-gunman theorists ala Sturdivan).
There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?
But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test  was carried out in Elm  St on 22nov1963.
Hickey fired  at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 11, 2023, 01:43:04 PM
There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?


The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.

Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).

One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.

But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test  was carried out in Elm  St on 22nov1963.

This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.

I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.

Hickey fired  at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.

This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.

You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.

There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 11, 2023, 10:10:41 PM
The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.

Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).

One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.

This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.

I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.

This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.

You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.

There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.
Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.
Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 12, 2023, 05:21:17 PM
Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.

The average adult scalp is between 5.5 mm and 5.8 mm deep/thick. I said 5.5 mm to be conservative and to give every benefit of doubt.

It is just not reasonable to argue that a fragment that tore through four of the five layers of the scalp and penetrated into the periosteum would not have caused a sharp stabbing pain. It is even more unreasonable to claim that a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp and embedded itself in the outer table would not have caused an even sharper stabbing pain.

Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.

Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?

Surely you know that this is a very far-fetched suggestion. There is no record of JFK being anywhere near gunfire in a paved area before the day of the assassination. JFK did not enjoy guns and hunting. His only known hunting activity was reportedly when LBJ took him hunting on his ranch about two weeks after the 1960 election, and nothing unusual was reported as occurring during the outing--and, needless to say, there was no pavement in the woods where they were hunting.

You keep saying "if true" about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Why? Do you think that Dr. Mantik fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Do you think that Dr. Chesser fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Dr. Mantik discovered the fragment only after viewing the 6.5 mm object under high magnification, and he then did OD measurements on it to confirm his visual detection.

Do you think that Dr. Fitzpatrick was somehow mistaken when he said, after spending many hours examining the skull x-rays over a two-day period, that there is a small fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays that is within the 6.5 mm object's area when viewed from the AP angle? Do you think that all the HSCA FPP experts were mistaken when they said they saw a small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays that vertically aligned with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Do you understand that even Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that there's a small bullet fragment in that location on the lateral x-rays but that it cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object?

There's no "if true" about it.

Researchers have long puzzled over Sibert and O'Neill's reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4). They said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is close to the lamda, and the lamda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and sagittal suture at the top of the occiput; it can certainly be described as the juncture of the skull bone in the back of the head.

However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm, and that fragment was nowhere near the back of the head but was very close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays.

Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment was based on the autopsy doctors talking about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lamda.

So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.

The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.
Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LsGBQdZ5/z312-Muchmore.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 12, 2023, 07:08:48 PM
Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LsGBQdZ5/z312-Muchmore.jpg)

HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really??? Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.

Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.

Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???

Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle and traveling from right to left could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.

ADDENDUM: And just FYI, the HSCA's trajectory expert, a NASA scientist named Thomas Canning, said JFK's head was tilted/leaning forward by 11 degrees when the Z313 shot occurred. The HSCA FPP experts produced a drawing that showed JFK's head leaning forward by about 27 degrees when the Z313 shot occurred, and they were assuming the entry point to be in the cowlick. But you say you see a 60-degree forward tilt in the Muchmore frame, and that an Oswald bullet hitting the EOP entry site could have produced the same exit wound described by the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP. Amazing.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 12, 2023, 08:57:32 PM
HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really??? Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.

Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.

Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???

Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.

Someone is arrogant with few scruples. This is like you claiming all LNers believe the SBT occurred at Z224. Most LNers now go with the "cowlick"-level inshoot. Try to get up to speed on these things.

A near-EOP shot would have shattered the lower right skull and half the floor, with little metal, if any, exiting That's inconsistent with the autopsy photos and descriptions, and the gaping head wound location seen in the Zapruder film.. Humes saw the problem in the 1967 "Military Review" and the "Clark Panel" saw it immediately. If Humes had bared the EOP (there's a lot of attachments there to clear away), I believe he would have taken a picture of the skull entry wound in relation to the bared EOP. Instead Humes relied on feeling through the scalp for the EOP and reflecting the scalp without baring the EOP

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif)
Polygon data is from BodyParts3D, CC BY-SA 2.1 jp, ( Link (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25042966) )

Humes seems to have measured from the skull mid-line to the skull entry wound ("2.5 cm. laterally"). Problem is there's no mid-line visible on the exterior of the occipital bone, but there is a mid-line right over from the "cowlick"-level entry wound (Clark Panel, HSCA).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 12, 2023, 09:51:09 PM
HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really???
The forward head lean is more than 30 degrees relative to the car horizontal*(see below).  But Donohue is wrong that the path requires a 60 degree downward angle.  Draw an 11 degree angle to the car horizontal at that point, which was the angle from the SN, entering the back of the head and see where it exits. It exits the top front of the head.   You don't need to measure angles. Just draw the line:

(https://i.postimg.cc/4y4rwGQ9/z312-Muchmore-angles.jpg)

Since the head is also turned to the left by about 30 degrees more than a line from the SN to the head, it exits the right side at the top of the head.  That could not possibly be done by a shot from where Hickey was with JFK turned and leaning like that.

*  The horizontal angle from the SN to JFK's head was arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees (65.3 feet above JFK and 265.3 feet direct distance as surveyed and shown in CE884).  Subtracting 3 degrees for the slope of the road, this means the angle to the car horizontal was about 11.25 degrees.  The path through JFK's head was from the entry wound located 3" below the top of the head to the exit wound which was 6" farther forward and at the top of the right side of the head, that is an upward angle of arctan(3/6)=26.5 degrees.  In other words:  the forward tilt of JFK's head relative to the car horizontal has to equal the 11.25 degrees downward slope from the SN relative to the car horizontal plus the angle of the bullet path to the head horizontal (26.5 degrees)=38 degrees. So the forward lean of JFK just has to be about 38 degrees, not 60.

Quote
Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.
See above.

Quote
Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.
See above.

Quote
Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???

Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.
See above.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 12, 2023, 10:07:49 PM
The average adult scalp is between 5.5 mm and 5.8 mm deep/thick. I said 5.5 mm to be conservative and to give every benefit of doubt.

It is just not reasonable to argue that a fragment that tore through four of the five layers of the scalp and penetrated into the periosteum would not have caused a sharp stabbing pain. It is even more unreasonable to claim that a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp and embedded itself in the outer table would not have caused an even sharper stabbing pain.

Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.

Surely you know that this is a very far-fetched suggestion. There is no record of JFK being anywhere near gunfire in a paved area before the day of the assassination. JFK did not enjoy guns and hunting. His only known hunting activity was reportedly when LBJ took him hunting on his ranch about two weeks after the 1960 election, and nothing unusual was reported as occurring during the outing--and, needless to say, there was no pavement in the woods where they were hunting.

You keep saying "if true" about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Why? Do you think that Dr. Mantik fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Do you think that Dr. Chesser fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Dr. Mantik discovered the fragment only after viewing the 6.5 mm object under high magnification, and he then did OD measurements on it to confirm his visual detection.

Do you think that Dr. Fitzpatrick was somehow mistaken when he said, after spending many hours examining the skull x-rays over a two-day period, that there is a small fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays that is within the 6.5 mm object's area when viewed from the AP angle? Do you think that all the HSCA FPP experts were mistaken when they said they saw a small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays that vertically aligned with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Do you understand that even Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that there's a small bullet fragment in that location on the lateral x-rays but that it cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object?

There's no "if true" about it.

Researchers have long puzzled over Sibert and O'Neill's reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4). They said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is close to the lamda, and the lamda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and sagittal suture at the top of the occiput; it can certainly be described as the juncture of the skull bone in the back of the head.

However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm, and that fragment was nowhere near the back of the head but was very close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays.

Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment was based on the autopsy doctors talking about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lamda.

So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.

The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays.
Thats a good summary.
Hume had access to the xrays up until about midnight. These xrays did not of course have the fake 6.5 circular "fragment".
Yes Hume & Co probly suppressed the alien 6.3 x 2.5 external back of head fragment that could only have come from a ricochet.
And then some years later we have the external 1mm fragment (left of the fake fragment) that could only have come from a ricochet.
And then many years later we have the lots of very small external fragments (i think right of the fake) that could only have come from a ricochet.

But Donahue's ricochet offa the tarmac behind the jfklimo (ie with fragments hitting jfk, & fragments landing in the limo) is silly.
Donahue did not realize that Haag & Co had shown that a ricochet (at more than a critical angle) off tarmac produces a near vertical plume, & that a bystander near the crater would almost certainly never suffer an injury.
And Donahue thort that the ricochet was near Z190 (not the actual Z105)(ie at the signals).

I wonder whether it would have been possible in 1963 to take stereo pairs of xrays of the skull etc (to give a 3D image)?
What could a modern scan tell us (ie exhumation)? Re the whole saga.

III. Application of Stereo-Imaging to the Medical Field: Historical Perspective
The stereograph was first introduced between the 1830s and 1840s and was based on the photography techniques suggested by Niepce, Daguerre, and Talbot. In 1850, Brewster invented a refracting stereoscope device called the lenticular stereoscope, which consisted of a closed box with one or two openings for the introduction of light into the box and two lenticular lenses, and enabled a viewer to see a 3D image on the floor of the closed box [12] (Figure 3). Soon after Röentgen first discovered the X-ray in 1895, Thomson [13] suggested acquiring and viewing stereoscopic X-ray images, and in 1898, Davidson [14,15] insisted on the advantages of stereoscopic photography and skiagraphy for recording various clinical and pathological appearances. In the early part of the 20th century, several early-stage stereoscopic devices provided stereo pairs of X-ray images to radiologists; however, it was difficult to align the films precisely. Therefore, the radiologists often experienced discomfort and eye strain when using the devices. Nevertheless, the demand for stereoscopic X-ray devices that can provide more realistic images of tissue morphology and anatomy gradually increased. Since the 1970s, several 3D imaging devices, such as X-ray computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), that can obtain several sliced images of specific body areas with uniform spacing and display the 3D structure of the body by using volume/surface rendering techniques have been developed and applied to various clinical diagnostic fields. Moreover, the application of 3D stereoscopic imaging has recently broadened to various other fields, such as teaching anatomy, digital mammography, diabetic retinopathy, and minimally invasive surgery [16].


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 12, 2023, 10:48:16 PM
Someone is arrogant with few scruples. This is like you claiming all LNers believe the SBT occurred at Z224. Most LNers now go with the "cowlick"-level inshoot. Try to get up to speed on these things.

A near-EOP shot would have shattered the lower right skull and half the floor, with little metal, if any, exiting That's inconsistent with the autopsy photos and descriptions, and the gaping head wound location seen in the Zapruder film.. Humes saw the problem in the 1967 "Military Review" and the "Clark Panel" saw it immediately. If Humes had bared the EOP (there's a lot of attachments there to clear away), I believe he would have taken a picture of the skull entry wound in relation to the bared EOP. Instead Humes relied on feeling through the scalp for the EOP and reflecting the scalp without baring the EOP

Humes seems to have measured from the skull mid-line to the skull entry wound ("2.5 cm. laterally"). Problem is there's no mid-line visible on the exterior of the occipital bone, but there is a mid-line right over from the "cowlick"-level entry wound (Clark Panel, HSCA).

LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.

A few points in reply:

-- You might want to read your own and best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, regarding why the cowlick entry site is pure bunk.

-- Dr. Finck had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, as he told the ARRB, but those photos never made it into the official record.

-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points.

-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it. 

-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- A bullet that entered at the EOP site would not have "shattered the lower right skull and half the floor" if it had been fired from a lower window of the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building.

-- A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and that entered at the debunked cowlick entry site would have entered at a 15-degree downward angle and would have been traveling at a leftward horizontal angle (right to left)--and therefore could not have exited above the right ear. Only someone willing to self-delude themselves could claim otherwise.

-- The HSCA's trajectory expert operated without knowing where the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) placed the alleged path of the bullet and without knowing that the FPP had to assume that JFK's head was tilted forward by about 27 degrees to make the path "work"--and the FPP was using the cowlick entry site. Canning put the forward tilt of JFK's head at just 11 degrees.

Andrew Mason's reply is gibberish. The WC's own diagram of the bullet's alleged path (CE 388) has Kennedy leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, as scholars have been noting for decades. See https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm (http://ttps://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm).

-- One of the HSCA's radiologists noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

-- The back-of-head fragment within the 6.5 mm object is below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means it could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom. This is one of the cold, hard facts of physics that Donahue zeroed in on as he delved into the forensic evidence regarding the 6.5 mm object.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the 6.5 mm object would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 12, 2023, 11:14:59 PM
LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.

OMG, is there a major JFKA conspiracy theory that you don't believe?
Just how BIG is your conspiracy and have you ever considered how many people were involved in this mass deception?
Why after 60 years has not one of these thousands blabbed, because to spill the beans is human nature after all?
And most importantly your side after all this time are still no closer to a solution than Day one, how much time and how many man years of fruitless research and investigations could have been better spent helping the community and feeding the poor?

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 13, 2023, 12:36:01 AM
OMG, is there a major JFKA conspiracy theory that you don't believe?
Just how BIG is your conspiracy and have you ever considered how many people were involved in this mass deception?
Why after 60 years has not one of these thousands blabbed, because to spill the beans is human nature after all?
And most importantly your side after all this time are still no closer to a solution than Day one, how much time and how many man years of fruitless research and investigations could have been better spent helping the community and feeding the poor?

JohnM

This comical strawman argument again? Again? Are you caught in a time warp or something? You talk like we're in the 1960s still. FYI, some people have "blabbed," but your fellow flat-earthers find any and every excuse to reject their accounts.

Is there a "major" WC claim that you don't believe? The last time I saw you comment on the HSCA, you were still ignoring most of the HSCA's findings and research and quoting a handful of statements from a non-conspiracy draft of the HSCA's final report, even though Blakey has explained many times that that was a contingency draft in case the acoustical analysis found only three shots.

I think it's helpful to keep in mind that you are in a rather small minority of adults in the Western world who still believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who had no accomplices of any kind. You might wanna keep that in mind.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 13, 2023, 02:52:09 AM
I think it's helpful to keep in mind that you are in a rather small minority of adults in the Western world who still believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who had no accomplices of any kind. You might wanna keep that in mind.

Aye me Hearties ye olde chestnut, unlike some i.e. you, I'm not a sheeple being mindlessly herded along with the flock but have intellectually chosen to utilize  deductive reasoning skills to draw the only inescapable conclusion.
Having lived in the real World for more than half a Century, one starts to understand People, who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. The enormous conspiracy that you suggested in your second to last post, which btw is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the mountain of conspiracy you've outlined in your book is no small undertaking and involves many compliant conspirators across a vast number of fields, who need to lie from innocent civilians, to cops walking the beat, to FBI, CIA through to the Goddam newly sworn in President of the United States, manipulate, insert manipulated evidence into microfilms, gaining access to federal departments, inserting manipulated evidence into crime scenes, create masses of altered evidence from corroborating films, then faking these films by some unknown processes, faking photographs, forging documents, modifying X-rays, and all this faked evidence is so perfect that real experts 60 years later still can't detect any signs of manipulation.

And on the other hand a lone nut took a mail order rifle to work and shot the President.

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 13, 2023, 04:55:57 AM
LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.

A few points in reply:

-- You might want to read your own and best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, regarding why the cowlick entry site is pure bunk.

I'm not obligated to accept Larry Sturdivan's EOP preference. I take it you don't accept his belief that Oswald was the lone assassin!

Quote
-- Dr. Finck had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, as he told the ARRB, but those photos never made it into the official record.

Yet, in 1966, Humes, Boswell and Finck signed a review stating that all the autopsy materials were complete and authentic as they remembered them from three years earlier.

Quote
-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points.

The autopsy report references the skull entry wound with regard to the hairline and lamba? Only Humes felt for the EOP "bump". Humes and Boswell, in 1966 and for the HSCA, did not dispute the authenticity of the autopsy photos that show the only entry wound to the head was at the "cowlick"-level.

Quote
-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it. 

Did they personally feel for the EOP? If not, they were merely taking Humes' word for having located it. He didn't intentionally mis-locate the EOP. Humes' palpation was through scalp and hair of a skull with criss-crossing fracture lines.

Quote
-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- A bullet that entered at the EOP site would not have "shattered the lower right skull and half the floor" if it had been fired from a lower window of the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building.

It would take out the right forehead and send fractures through the floor. Still not a viable candidate.

Quote
-- A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and that entered at the debunked cowlick entry site would have entered at a 15-degree downward angle and would have been traveling at a leftward horizontal angle (right to left)--and therefore could not have exited above the right ear. Only someone willing to self-delude themselves could claim otherwise.

The cowlick entry site is hardly "debunked". It's the only possible trajectory that conforms to the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film. Nothing to do with seer stones.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1TjpcglbibHHGmr9DZVRLZIFfTnj3RHjF)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1S-vVZ5DytkKdir6Fu7FrlPrclVI9Rxjb)

(https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/28/kqoiY4t8_o.gif)

Griffith finds this "impossible". LOL.

Quote
-- The HSCA's trajectory expert operated without knowing where the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) placed the alleged path of the bullet and without knowing that the FPP had to assume that JFK's head was tilted forward by about 27 degrees to make the path "work"--and the FPP was using the cowlick entry site. Canning put the forward tilt of JFK's head at just 11 degrees.

Andrew Mason's reply is gibberish. The WC's own diagram of the bullet's alleged path (CE 388) has Kennedy leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, as scholars have been noting for decades. See https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm (http://ttps://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm).

Who uses CE-388 anymore? Try to keep up, will you? The Warren Commission had to accept the "EOP" entry site (years before it was shown to be wrong). The artist, who apparently didn't refer to the Zapruder film, make an "EOP" entry exit through the right parietal bone. Had there been a review by other pathologists of the autopsy report and materials, the Commission would have been alerted to Humes' mistake.

Quote
-- One of the HSCA's radiologists noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

What would the upper part of a fragment trail have to cling to, if the brain there was missing? And what brain was left for metallic fragments to rest it near the entry wound?

Quote
-- The back-of-head fragment within the 6.5 mm object is below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means it could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom. This is one of the cold, hard facts of physics that Donahue zeroed in on as he delved into the forensic evidence regarding the 6.5 mm object.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the 6.5 mm object would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

You're arguing old stuff again, stuff that nobody espouses. Move on.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Chris Davidson on December 13, 2023, 06:58:04 AM
(65.3 feet above JFK and 265.3 feet direct distance as surveyed and shown in CE884). 
Would you care to re-check this data for accuracy?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 13, 2023, 02:24:24 PM
Aye me Hearties ye olde chestnut, unlike some i.e. you, I'm not a sheeple being mindlessly herded along with the flock but have intellectually chosen to utilize  deductive reasoning skills to draw the only inescapable conclusion.
Having lived in the real World for more than half a Century, one starts to understand People, who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. The enormous conspiracy that you suggested in your second to last post, which btw is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the mountain of conspiracy you've outlined in your book is no small undertaking and involves many compliant conspirators across a vast number of fields, who need to lie from innocent civilians, to cops walking the beat, to FBI, CIA through to the Goddam newly sworn in President of the United States, manipulate, insert manipulated evidence into microfilms, gaining access to federal departments, inserting manipulated evidence into crime scenes, create masses of altered evidence from corroborating films, then faking these films by some unknown processes, faking photographs, forging documents, modifying X-rays, and all this faked evidence is so perfect that real experts 60 years later still can't detect any signs of manipulation.

And on the other hand a lone nut took a mail order rifle to work and shot the President. JohnM

Humm, well, during all this time you've spent in the "real World" [sic], you apparently have not taken the time to get yourself a decent education so you can avoid making high-school-level writing and grammatical errors.

I won't waste time dissecting your strawman misrepresentation of the case for conspiracy in JFK's death, but I will list a few of the people who have concluded and stated that JFK was killed by a conspiracy/killed by more than one gunman:

-- Robert F. Kennedy, brother of JFK and JFK's Attorney General. (Although RFK publicly endorsed the WC, we now know that privately he told many friends and family members that he believed his brother had been killed by a right-wing conspiracy, and that he planned on reopening the case if he won the White House. Historian David Talbot discusses RFK's numerous private statements on the assassination in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years. We also now know that soon after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent a private message to the Kremlin that they did not believe the Soviets were involved in JFK's death and that JFK was killed by "domestic opponents," a "right-wing conspiracy.")

-- Morris Wolff, a former White House aide to JFK and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy who later served as a legislative assistant to WC member Senator Sherman Cooper. (Wolff revealed in 2022 that Cooper did not believe the SBT, did not believe that Oswald acted alone, and did not believe that Ruby had no serious Mafia connections.)

-- Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin.

-- Dr. Joseph Dolce, an Army wound ballistics expert who played a leading role in the WC's wound ballistics tests. (Dr. Dolce was considered to be one of the Army's top wound ballistics experts at the time.)

-- The late Senator Richard Schweiker, who served on the Church Committee.

-- Former Senator Christopher Dodd, who served on the HSCA when he was a member of the House of Representatives.

-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, a clinical professor of ophthalmology at the University of California.

-- Dr. Roger McCarthy, a ballistics expert with Failure Analysis, which assisted with the American Bar Association's mock Oswald trials in the 1990s.

-- Dr. Arthur Snyder, formerly a physicist at the University of Indiana and then at Stanford University's Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).

-- Journalist Robert MacNeil, formerly of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS.

-- The late Ambassador William Atwood, former Special Assistant to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations.

-- President Lyndon Johnson. (We now know from the Johnson White House tapes that Johnson rejected the single-bullet theory. We also know from former Johnson aides and associates that Johnson believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.)

-- The late Dr. Milton Helpern, a renowned forensic pathologist and formerly the medical examiner for New York City.

-- The late Dr. John Nichols, a forensic pathologist and formerly a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas.

-- The late Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper who was widely regarded as the greatest sniper of the 20th century.

-- The late Evelyn Lincoln, who was Kennedy's White House secretary.

-- The late Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician.

-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former HSCA deputy chief counsel and a former assistant district attorney in NYC who became chief of the Homicide Bureau and then the chief of the NYC Criminal Courts.

-- G. Robert Blakey, a former HSCA chief counsel and a professor of law at Notre Dame University.

-- Gary Cornwell, a former HSCA deputy chief counsel and a former DOJ prosecutor who served as the chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in Kansas City, where he successfully tried and convicted the chiefs of the Mafia families in both Kansas City and Denver.

-- The late Gaeton Fonzi, a respected investigative journalist whose work was published in major newspapers, including the New York Times, and who served as an investigator for the Church Committee and the HSCA.

-- Ed Lopez, a former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activities in Mexico City and who co-authored the Lopez-Hardway Report (aka the Lopez Report).

-- Dan Hardway, a former HSCA investigator who worked with Ed Lopez to investigate Oswald's time in Mexico City and who co-authored the Lopez-Hardway Report.

-- Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics and an M.D. in radiation oncology. He is a board-certified radiation oncologist. He completed fellowships in physics at the University of Illinois and in biophysics at Stanford University. He was a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Michigan. He has authored scientific papers that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The list could continue for many pages.







Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 13, 2023, 04:21:24 PM
Aye me Hearties ye olde chestnut, unlike some i.e. you, I'm not a sheeple being mindlessly herded along with the flock but have intellectually chosen to utilize  deductive reasoning skills to draw the only inescapable conclusion.
Having lived in the real World for more than half a Century, one starts to understand People, who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. The enormous conspiracy that you suggested in your second to last post, which btw is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the mountain of conspiracy you've outlined in your book is no small undertaking and involves many compliant conspirators across a vast number of fields, who need to lie from innocent civilians, to cops walking the beat, to FBI, CIA through to the Goddam newly sworn in President of the United States, manipulate, insert manipulated evidence into microfilms, gaining access to federal departments, inserting manipulated evidence into crime scenes, create masses of altered evidence from corroborating films, then faking these films by some unknown processes, faking photographs, forging documents, modifying X-rays, and all this faked evidence is so perfect that real experts 60 years later still can't detect any signs of manipulation.

And on the other hand a lone nut took a mail order rifle to work and shot the President.

JohnM
Democrats and Republicans in Washington loathe one another, couldn't agree to go to lunch. But he and his fellow conspiracists have multiple generations of them - and multiple generations of Americans from various backgrounds - for decades planning this out, executing it, then covering it all up. And then covering up the coverups. And all remaining silent.

There is no such thing as "the government" or "the CIA" or "the FBI". They all consist of people of various backgrounds and views. With departments and divisions and personalities and interests. The idea that all of this, this vast array of interests and people and departments, could be controlled, directed, ordered and that all of it would carry those orders out (no one object? no one liked JFK?) is a fantasy. It cannot be done. A Hitler, a Stalin couldn't do it in a closed society. How about the American system with its openness, its bureaucracy, its independent agencies, its check and balances? You think this could be planned and carried out and then covered up. In secret? Again it cannot be done.

Not only could it not be done there is no evidence for it. So they are left with staring at photos and images and finding evidence for this fantasy (the Soviets said it was Oswald who visited them in Mexico City: What's the conspiracy response? They all lied and are also part of the conspiracy!! Yes, a CIA/FBI/KGB conspiracy). Good for us; it keeps them off the street.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 13, 2023, 06:39:21 PM
The forward head lean is more than 30 degrees relative to the car horizontal*(see below).  But Donohue is wrong that the path requires a 60 degree downward angle.  Draw an 11 degree angle to the car horizontal at that point, which was the angle from the SN, entering the back of the head and see where it exits. It exits the top front of the head.   You don't need to measure angles. Just draw the line:

Since the head is also turned to the left by about 30 degrees more than a line from the SN to the head, it exits the right side at the top of the head.  That could not possibly be done by a shot from where Hickey was with JFK turned and leaning like that.

*  The horizontal angle from the SN to JFK's head was arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees (65.3 feet above JFK and 265.3 feet direct distance as surveyed and shown in CE884).  Subtracting 3 degrees for the slope of the road, this means the angle to the car horizontal was about 11.25 degrees.  The path through JFK's head was from the entry wound located 3" below the top of the head to the exit wound which was 6" farther forward and at the top of the right side of the head, that is an upward angle of arctan(3/6)=26.5 degrees.  In other words:  the forward tilt of JFK's head relative to the car horizontal has to equal the 11.25 degrees downward slope from the SN relative to the car horizontal plus the angle of the bullet path to the head horizontal (26.5 degrees)=38 degrees. So the forward lean of JFK just has to be about 38 degrees, not 60.

Your willingness to simply brush aside contrary evidence is remarkable. Let's get a few basic facts straight to cut through all of this smoke, and then let's look at some problems with the cowlick entry site that you have never addressed (probably because you know nothing about them):

One, first and foremost, the 60-degree figure comes from the WC's own diagram of the bullet's alleged path. This is CE 388. CE 388 has Kennedy's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, as scholars have been noting for decades. You can see the diagram at this link:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm)

Two, when I first pointed out that CE 388 shows JFK's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, you erroneously claimed that the Muchmore frame shows JFK leaning just about that far forward, saying "kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot" and then you presented the Muchmore frame. But, now you say that JFK was leaning forward by 38 degrees. Sorry, but 38 degrees is not "kind of like" 60 degrees.

Three, you apparently have no clue about the HSCA medical experts' diagram of the bullet's path, which has JFK's head leaning forward by about 27 degrees. The key fact about this diagram is that it was based on the FPP's locations for the entry and exit wounds, whereas Canning operated without that information.

Four, your arguments above "see above" do not explain how a bullet entering at a downward angle of 15 degrees and moving from right to left could have hit the cowlick entry site and yet exited above the right ear while leaving a fragment trail (1) that does not start even close to the entry point, (2) that is located visibly above the entry point, and (3) that is concentrated several inches away from the entry point, in fact practically on the other side of the skull.

As mentioned, the HSCA FPP could only create the appearance that this trajectory was plausible by leaning JFK's head forward by about 27 degrees. Lattimer leaned the head even a bit farther forward, but still not as much as CE 388 does. Yet, you say it all works out if you assume the head's forward tilt was 38 degrees. Amazing.

This is not to even mention the enormous problem of the two separate wound paths/tracks, which we'll address in a minute.

Five, you also appear unaware of the devastating problems posed for the cowlick entry site by the fragment in the supraorbital ridge. Let me quote neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley:

Quote
It is difficult, if not impossible, to explain how a bullet that has a trajectory almost tangential to the skull [required by the assumption that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window] could fragment extensively in the superficial brain layers, have major portions of the bullet exit (based on fragments recovered in the limousine), yet a large fragment (which retains a circular profile) deviates down to penetrate the supraorbital ridge but no fragments are distributed along the pathway. (Joseph N. Riley, “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)

Six, you also appear unaware of the devastating problem posed for the cowlick entry site by the rear subcortical damage, which is separate from the cortical damage. The HSCA FPP, though aware of subcortical damage, did not even try to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused it. Dr. Riley:

Quote
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report. . . .

There is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. (Joseph N. Riley, “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)

If you don't grasp Riley's technical language, let me translate it for you: the autopsy materials show two separate bullet tracks through the brain (not fragment trails, but tracks or wound paths), one path being well above the other, and those tracks are not connected in any way, which can only mean that two bullets entered JFK's skull.

Seven, regardless of your effort to fit square pegs into round holes with the impossible trajectories, you need to explain how an FMJ bullet whose nose and tail were found in the limo could have deposited two fragments, one on the outer table and the other between the galea and the outer table, both of which are 1 cm below the alleged cowlick entry site. Even assuming this one FMJ bullet behaved like no other FMJ bullet has ever behaved and magically "sheared off" two fragments from its cross section as it entered the skull, how could the fragments have ended up 1 cm below the entry point, especially given the fact that the bullet would have entered at a 15-degree downward angle?




Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 13, 2023, 07:31:06 PM
Zapruder, about 40 feet away, views and films the assassination. Immediately after he has that film - and three copies - made. He views the original film at the studio. He then gives two copies - copies not the original - to the Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent the government. Just one copy to Sorrels. Sorrels - "thuh government" doesn't take all four. No, they take - are given - two copies. Zapruder keeps the original and shows it the next day to potential buyers.

Fast forward to the Clay Shaw trial in 1967 1969. At the trial Zapruder shows the film to the jury. It's shown multiple times. It shows the explosion on JFK's head at the top/right not the back. Again, not the back. Zapruder doesn't see this change? The original film supposedly shows the explosion out of the back. Here, the film shows the top/side. It's been changed by the CIA from back to top? Zapruder doesn't see this?

You have be quite a fantasist to think Zapruder saw a blowout in the back of the head on the original but then *doesn't* notice that it has changed to the top/right in the film shown at the trial.

Fantasists indeed.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 13, 2023, 08:59:34 PM
Humm, well, during all this time you've spent in the "real World" [sic], you apparently have not taken the time to get yourself a decent education so you can avoid making high-school-level writing and grammatical errors.

I won't waste time dissecting your strawman misrepresentation of the case for conspiracy in JFK's death, but I will list a few of the people who have concluded and stated that JFK was killed by a conspiracy/killed by more than one gunman:

-- Robert F. Kennedy, brother of JFK and JFK's Attorney General. (Although RFK publicly endorsed the WC, we now know that privately he told many friends and family members that he believed his brother had been killed by a right-wing conspiracy, and that he planned on reopening the case if he won the White House. Historian David Talbot discusses RFK's numerous private statements on the assassination in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years. We also now know that soon after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent a private message to the Kremlin that they did not believe the Soviets were involved in JFK's death and that JFK was killed by "domestic opponents," a "right-wing conspiracy.")

-- Morris Wolff, a former White House aide to JFK and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy who later served as a legislative assistant to WC member Senator Sherman Cooper. (Wolff revealed in 2022 that Cooper did not believe the SBT, did not believe that Oswald acted alone, and did not believe that Ruby had no serious Mafia connections.)

-- Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin.

-- Dr. Joseph Dolce, an Army wound ballistics expert who played a leading role in the WC's wound ballistics tests. (Dr. Dolce was considered to be one of the Army's top wound ballistics experts at the time.)

-- The late Senator Richard Schweiker, who served on the Church Committee.

-- Former Senator Christopher Dodd, who served on the HSCA when he was a member of the House of Representatives.

-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, a clinical professor of ophthalmology at the University of California.

-- Dr. Roger McCarthy, a ballistics expert with Failure Analysis, which assisted with the American Bar Association's mock Oswald trials in the 1990s.

-- Dr. Arthur Snyder, formerly a physicist at the University of Indiana and then at Stanford University's Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).

-- Journalist Robert MacNeil, formerly of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS.

-- The late Ambassador William Atwood, former Special Assistant to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations.

-- President Lyndon Johnson. (We now know from the Johnson White House tapes that Johnson rejected the single-bullet theory. We also know from former Johnson aides and associates that Johnson believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.)

-- The late Dr. Milton Helpern, a renowned forensic pathologist and formerly the medical examiner for New York City.

-- The late Dr. John Nichols, a forensic pathologist and formerly a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas.

-- The late Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper who was widely regarded as the greatest sniper of the 20th century.

-- The late Evelyn Lincoln, who was Kennedy's White House secretary.

-- The late Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician.

-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former HSCA deputy chief counsel and a former assistant district attorney in NYC who became chief of the Homicide Bureau and then the chief of the NYC Criminal Courts.

-- G. Robert Blakey, a former HSCA chief counsel and a professor of law at Notre Dame University.

-- Gary Cornwell, a former HSCA deputy chief counsel and a former DOJ prosecutor who served as the chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in Kansas City, where he successfully tried and convicted the chiefs of the Mafia families in both Kansas City and Denver.

-- The late Gaeton Fonzi, a respected investigative journalist whose work was published in major newspapers, including the New York Times, and who served as an investigator for the Church Committee and the HSCA.

-- Ed Lopez, a former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activities in Mexico City and who co-authored the Lopez-Hardway Report (aka the Lopez Report).

-- Dan Hardway, a former HSCA investigator who worked with Ed Lopez to investigate Oswald's time in Mexico City and who co-authored the Lopez-Hardway Report.

-- Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics and an M.D. in radiation oncology. He is a board-certified radiation oncologist. He completed fellowships in physics at the University of Illinois and in biophysics at Stanford University. He was a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Michigan. He has authored scientific papers that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The list could continue for many pages.

Quote
Humm, well, during all this time you've spent in the "real World" [sic], you apparently have not taken the time to get yourself a decent education so you can avoid making high-school-level writing and grammatical errors.

Here we go with yet another self serving deflection! Who do are you think you're impressing with this pompous nit-picking, as I said in the previous thread "language" is designed to convey ideas, just because I don't use the occasional capitalization or a comma, do you honestly believe that this erroneous diversion is enough for the readers to see your total lack of a worthwhile refutation of my scientifically reinforced facts?
Btw the ability to construct an anally grammatically correct sentence pales in comparison of my chosen field of JFKA image analysis and the fact that you are currently going to these extraordinary lengths just proves that you have an inferior understanding of what you are exactly arguing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FKn2SGgN/grammarpolice-tn-400x400.jpg)

Quote
I won't waste time dissecting your strawman misrepresentation of the case for conspiracy in JFK's death

Yeah, you better run because when all the conspirators required for your endless conspiracies are tallied, the total of which encompasses hundreds of individuals across all facets of diametrically opposed professions and beliefs, your entire argument for conspiracy becomes an untenable mess and you don't seem to realize that every time you throw yet another innocent person under your bus that you are unintentionally revealing the impossibility of your paranoid beliefs!
But by all means keep it up because you're just making my job easier.

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 13, 2023, 09:27:14 PM
Zapruder, about 40 feet away, views and films the assassination. Immediately after he has that film - and three copies - made. He views the original film at the studio. He then gives two copies - copies not the original - to the Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent. Sorrels - "thuh government" doesn't take all four. No, they take - are given - two copies. Zapruder keeps the original and shows it the next day to potential buyers.

Fast forward to the Clay Shaw trial in 1967. At the trial Zapruder shows the film to the jury. It's shown multiple times. It shows the explosion on JFK's head at the top/right not the back. Again, not the back. Zapruder doesn't see this change? The original film supposedly shows the explosion out of the back. Here, the film shows the top/side. It's been changed by the CIA from back to top? Zapruder doesn't see this?

You have be quite a fantasist to think Zapruder saw a blowout in the back of the head on the original but then *doesn't* notice that it has changed to the top/right in the film shown at the trial.

Fantasists indeed.

Before there was any thought of "conspiracy" the first day Dealey Plaza innocent civilian eyewitnesses were interviewed within an hour or two and they describe just like as seen in the Zapruder film, an explosion of matter out the front.

(https://i.postimg.cc/PJ7hr2LL/first-day-dealey-polaza-eyewitnesses.gif)

Upon close inspection of the Zapruder film, the initial forward movement of Kennedy is undeniable.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Xv9zrxPZ/Closeup-312-313a.gif)

JohnM

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 13, 2023, 10:48:09 PM
Your willingness to simply brush aside contrary evidence is remarkable. Let's get a few basic facts straight to cut through all of this smoke, and then let's look at some problems with the cowlick entry site that you have never addressed (probably because you know nothing about them):

You probably don't know this but Andrew is a Lawyer who has repeatedly demonstrated on this Forum that he has a powerful understanding of geometry and physics and IIRC that he's done this type of analysis in court and is clearly making you look like the amateur that you are! Hilarious!
Btw the bottom line is, if in some alternate universe this ever went to court, you would be bumbling and stumbling with your childish hysterics and Andrew would be convincing the jury of the actual reality.

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 14, 2023, 02:47:49 PM
Zapruder, about 40 feet away, views and films the assassination. Immediately after he has that film - and three copies - made. He views the original film at the studio. He then gives two copies - copies not the original - to the Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent. Sorrels - "thuh government" doesn't take all four. No, they take - are given - two copies. Zapruder keeps the original and shows it the next day to potential buyers.

Fast forward to the Clay Shaw trial in 1967. At the trial Zapruder shows the film to the jury. It's shown multiple times. It shows the explosion on JFK's head at the top/right not the back. Again, not the back. Zapruder doesn't see this change? The original film supposedly shows the explosion out of the back. Here, the film shows the top/side. It's been changed by the CIA from back to top? Zapruder doesn't see this?

You have be quite a fantasist to think Zapruder saw a blowout in the back of the head on the original but then *doesn't* notice that it has changed to the top/right in the film shown at the trial.

Fantasists indeed.

You are yet another WC apologist who seems to be living in the 1960s and who appears to be unaware of the numerous disclosures and discoveries that have occurred since then. Do the terms "Hawkeyeworks," "NPIC," "Dino Brugioni," "Homer McMahon," etc., ring a bell? Educate yourself:

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ (https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/)

You cite Zapruder's alleged failure to notice the change in the head wounding from what he saw from 40 feet away with his eye up against the camera's viewfinder vs. what he later saw in the film. We could spend some time talking about the point that you cannot prove that Zapruder did not notice differences between what he filmed and what was later presented as his film. But, let's assume that he did not notice any differences. If you think that failure is "fantastic," how about the astonishing failure of Nurses Diana Bowron, Doris Nelson, and Patricia Hutton and mortician Tom Robinson to notice the gaping, shredded wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos? Hey?

Bowron and Robinson handled the skull. Bowron helped Nurse Henchliffe wash the head and packed the large right-rear wound with gauze, and then wrapped sheets around the head. She did not see any other large wound on the head and said the autopsy photos do not show the wound that she saw.

Robinson viewed the autopsy and then helped to reconstruct JFK's skull after the autopsy. He was specifically asked if he saw any other large wounds other than the back-of-head wound that he described, and he said no, he did not. He watched and helped with the reconstruction of the skull. How in the world could he have failed to notice the brazenly obvious horrific wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos? How?

Nurse Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital. She got a good look at JFK's head. In 1981, in a recorded interview, journalist Ben Bradlee asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson said she got "a fairly good look. . . . When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the autopsy photographs that show the back of the head intact, she was incredulous, saying,

Quote
"No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw))

Bradlee even had Nelson draw the wound on an artificial skull. She put the wound in the right-rear part of the skull. Then, Bradlee asked her if the autopsy photos showed the head wound that she saw, and she said "No." Bradlee then asked her specifically about the large wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos. She rejected it, saying,

Quote
"There was a large hole, but it was right back there" [indicating the right-rear side of the head]. (url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw[/url])

Ignoring all this, WC apologists give complete precedence to the one and only time that Nurse Nelson demonstrated the wound as being only on the right side of the head and not at all on the back of the head, which she did when she was interviewed by a LIFE reporter two years after she had described and drawn the wound as being in the right-rear area of the head. The reporter asked her to show him where the wound was, and she put her hand only on the right side of the head. WC apologists of course accept this spur-of-the-moment demonstration and reject her prolonged interview with Bradlee where she repeatedly said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head, drew the wound on an artificial skull, and expressly rejected the head wound shown in the autopsy photos.

Just after JFK was wheeled into the ER, Nurse Patricia Hutton was asked to place a pressure dressing on the head wound because "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head." But, she said, the pressure dressing was ineffective "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (11/22/63 statement, Price Exhibit No. 21, p. 1).

The autopsy photos show a shredded, gaping, bloody wound above the right ear. That wound surely would have been bleeding severely. Please do tell me how you think Hutton could not have noticed it, much less how she could have "mistaken" it for a wound that was 3-4 inches farther back on the head. How could she have seen blood coming from a wound in the back of the head if the wound had been above the right ear? Could she not tell the difference between a large hole in the back of the head and a large hole above the right ear?

Finally, a few points regarding the nonsensical claims being made by Jerry Organ and others about the autopsy doctors and the debunked cowlick entry site:

-- Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

Quote
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)

-- Dr. Finck told the ARRB that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound from outside the skull and from inside the skull, which, by the way, is a standard autopsy procedure, and then Finck noted that he did not see these photos in the collection of autopsy photos that he examined.

-- Humes, Finck, Boswell, the guys who actually handled the skull and saw the entry wound up close, insisted that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was not the entry wound. Two of the three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the red spot is not a bullet entry wound.

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the supposed cowlick entry wound. This has been confirmed by Dr. Robert Artwohl and by Dr. David Mantik, both of whom have studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives. As Riley notes, "What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html). How could the cerebral cortex be intact just beneath the cowlick site if a bullet penetrated there?

-- We should keep in mind that the autopsy doctors identified the rear head entry wound both by a wound in the scalp and by a beveled wound directly beneath the scalp wound.

-- Only the EOP entry site can explain the subcortical damage, as Dr. Riley and other experts have explained.

-- The 11/22/63 autopsy face sheet marked by Dr. Boswell puts the entry wound very near the EOP and just slightly above ear level, whereas the cowlick entry site is at least 3 inches above ear level.

-- Dr. Sturdivan has noted another problem with the cowlick entry site: The autopsy skull x-rays show extensive cracks/fractures extending down from the cowlick site, but wound ballistics tests show no such extensive cracking extending from entry holes. Sturdivan notes that the Biophysics Lab test skulls do not show extensive cracking from the entry wounds, even though those skulls were dried, post-mortem skulls and were more brittle than live skulls (JFK Myths, pp. 193-194).

Are we starting to realize why even Pat Speer has rejected the cowlick entry site?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 14, 2023, 03:55:32 PM
Would you care to re-check this data for accuracy?
I took this from the survey data in CE884:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0464b.gif) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm)

The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).

At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).

From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet.  So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle.  I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much.   So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.

Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet.  So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 14, 2023, 05:38:36 PM
I took this from the survey data in CE884:

The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).

At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).

From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet.  So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle.  I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much.   So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.

Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet.  So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..

Is this supposed to be a response to the facts I've presented to you?

Allow me to repeat, again, that when I noted that CE 388 shows JFK's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, you said this was similar to ("kind of like") the position of his head in the Muchmore frame. Anyone can look at CE 388 and see immediately that JFK's forward tilt is far greater than it is in the Muchmore frame or in any pre-Z313 frame. This is too obvious to credibly deny.

I notice you are still avoiding the HSCA FPP's wound trajectory diagram. Have you even looked at it yet? This was the FPP's attempt to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit and then exited JFK's head in the way they were claiming it did, and they were assuming the entry point was the cowlick entry site.

Speaking of which, when are you going to address all the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? Problems such as intact cerebral cortex right beneath the wound, subcortical tissue damage far below the cowlick site and unconnected with the much higher cortical damage, the fact that every single autopsy witness who commented on the rear head entry wound's location said it was slightly above the EOP (just where the autopsy doctors placed it), the presence of two bullet fragments below the cowlick site when the bullet would have entered from above the site, the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has ever deposited fragments from its cross section on the outer table and between the galea and the outer table, the extreme unlikelihood that three pathologists (after reflecting the scalp and having photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull) could "mistake" a wound visibly above the lambda for a wound nearly 4 inches lower and slightly above the solid reference point of the EOP, etc., etc.

If you ditch the cowlick site and accept the EOP site, as most other researchers have done (even the super-cautious Pat Speer has done so), then you're faced with all the glaring contradictions between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos, IF you believe the brain photos are authentic and unaltered. If you're willing to acknowledge that the brain photos do not shows JFK's brain, then there are no objections to the EOP site's existence.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Chris Davidson on December 15, 2023, 01:43:53 AM
I took this from the survey data in CE884:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0464b.gif) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm)

The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).

At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).

From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet.  So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle.  I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much.   So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.

Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet.  So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..
Derived from CE884 if it helps:
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/SiZZv.png)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 15, 2023, 07:42:12 AM
Derived from CE884 if it helps:
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/SiZZv.png)

t looks like all the calculations are already performed and in the survey tabulation. This is not a right triangle but an obtuse triangle because the road slopes away from the TSBD leaving an angle greater than 90 degrees from the horizontal. The height of the shooter would be a constant with the slope of the road appearing to change, based on Z frame being approximately 1 foot horizontal per frame and the resulting elevation changes that are noted.

 https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html(http://)

A triangle is a polygon that has three vertices. A vertex is a point where two or more curves, lines, or edges meet; in the case of a triangle, the three vertices are joined by three line segments called edges. A triangle is usually referred to by its vertices. Hence, a triangle with vertices a, b, and c is typically denoted as Δabc. Furthermore, triangles tend to be described based on the length of their sides, as well as their internal angles. For example, a triangle in which all three sides have equal lengths is called an equilateral triangle while a triangle in which two sides have equal lengths is called isosceles. When none of the sides of a triangle have equal lengths, it is referred to as scalene, as depicted below.

triangle types

Tick marks on the edge of a triangle are a common notation that reflects the length of the side, where the same number of ticks means equal length. Similar notation exists for the internal angles of a triangle, denoted by differing numbers of concentric arcs located at the triangle's vertices. As can be seen from the triangles above, the length and internal angles of a triangle are directly related, so it makes sense that an equilateral triangle has three equal internal angles, and three equal length sides. Note that the triangle provided in the calculator is not shown to scale; while it looks equilateral (and has angle markings that typically would be read as equal), it is not necessarily equilateral and is simply a representation of a triangle. When actual values are entered, the calculator output will reflect what the shape of the input triangle should look like.

Triangles classified based on their internal angles fall into two categories: right or oblique. A right triangle is a triangle in which one of the angles is 90°, and is denoted by two line segments forming a square at the vertex constituting the right angle. The longest edge of a right triangle, which is the edge opposite the right angle, is called the hypotenuse. Any triangle that is not a right triangle is classified as an oblique triangle and can either be obtuse or acute. In an obtuse triangle, one of the angles of the triangle is greater than 90°, while in an acute triangle, all of the angles are less than 90°, as shown below.

triangle types
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 15, 2023, 12:53:06 PM
Speculating about trajectories and about downward-moving bullets magically veering upward and rightward is a waste of time until you address the fatal problems with the long-since-debunked cowlick entry site. Let's review some of those problems:

-- Dr. Finck advised the ARRB that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, from inside and outside the skull, but those photos never made it into the official record. Dr. Finck himself noted to the ARRB that those photos were not in the collection of autopsy photos that he examined.

-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points, and given the fact that they reflected the scalp and examined the wound in the skull.

-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it.

-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- One of the HSCA's radiologic consultants, Dr. David O. Davis, noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the high fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

-- The back-of-head fragments are below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means they could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the back-of-head fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

-- Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

Quote
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)

-- Humes, Finck, Boswell, the guys who actually handled the skull and saw the entry wound up close, insisted that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was not the entry wound. Two of the three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the red spot is not a bullet entry wound.

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the supposed cowlick entry wound. This has been confirmed by Dr. Robert Artwohl and by Dr. David Mantik, both of whom have studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives. As neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley notes, "What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html). How could the cerebral cortex be intact just beneath the cowlick site if a bullet penetrated there?

-- We should keep in mind that the autopsy doctors identified the rear head entry wound both by its presence in the scalp and by its beveled presence in the skull directly beneath the scalp wound.

-- Only the EOP entry site can explain the subcortical damage, as Dr. Riley and other experts have explained. The subcortical damage is separate from the cortical damage and is well below the cowlick site.

-- The 11/22/63 autopsy face sheet marked by Dr. Boswell puts the entry wound very near the EOP and just slightly above ear level, whereas the cowlick entry site is at least 3 inches above ear level.

-- Dr. Sturdivan has noted another problem with the cowlick entry site: The autopsy skull x-rays show extensive cracks/fractures extending down from the cowlick site, but wound ballistics tests show no such extensive cracking extending from entry holes. Sturdivan notes that not one of the Biophysics Lab test skulls showed extensive cracking from the entry wounds, even though those skulls were dried, post-mortem skulls and were more brittle than live skulls (JFK Myths, pp. 193-194).

Again, are we starting to realize why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has rejected the cowlick entry site?

And, if you are using the EOP entry site, then you need to address (1) the drastic contradictions between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos, and (2) the EOP site's inability to explain the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments.

Once you free your mind and acknowledge the clear evidence that two bullets entered JFK's skull, you understand that the EOP site explains the subcortical damage and that a separate bullet, a bullet that struck in the right temple, caused the the high fragment trail.

There's an apparent defect in the right-temple area seen in the skull x-rays that is consistent with a bullet entry point, and several witnesses (including mortician Tom Robinson) recalled seeing a small wound in the temple. Moreover, shortly after JFK died, Dr. Burkley told press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that a bullet struck the right temple, and Kilduff demonstrated this on national TV by pointing to his own right temple. I devote an entire chapter in my book to the evidence of a frontal shot.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 15, 2023, 05:47:57 PM
Is this supposed to be a response to the facts I've presented to you?
No. That was my previous post. 
Quote
I notice you are still avoiding the HSCA FPP's wound trajectory diagram. Have you even looked at it yet? This was the FPP's attempt to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit and then exited JFK's head in the way they were claiming it did, and they were assuming the entry point was the cowlick entry site.
I explained that the wounds to JFK's head do not require a 60 degree forward lean.  Only about a 38 degree forward lean.
Quote

Allow me to repeat, again, that when I noted that CE 388 shows JFK's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, you said this was similar to ("kind of like") the position of his head in the Muchmore frame. Anyone who is not emotionally committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can look at CE 388 and see immediately that JFK's forward tilt is far greater than it is in the Muchmore frame or in any pre-Z313 frame. This is too obvious to credibly deny. A child could see this.
CE388 shows JFK's head tilted forward at 52 degrees from the Earth horizontal. It shows the bullet trajectory at what I measure to be 16.9 degrees from Earth horizontal or 52-16.9=35.1 degrees to the head horizontal
(https://i.postimg.cc/8cBbQCL2/CE388-angle.jpg)

I had the angle through the head at around 26.5 degrees because I had the entrance a bit higher in the back and the exit a bit farther to the front.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5y2QRgTT/CE388-angle-AM.jpg)

If one tilts JFK back about 14 degrees from the position shown in CE388 and adds the 3 degrees of the car downward slope,  it fits the path to the SN of about 11.25 degrees to the car horizontal :

(https://i.postimg.cc/C1tLJ3BQ/CE388-angle-minus17.jpg)

There is, of course, a bit of uncertainty of a few degrees due to uncertainty to the precise location of the wounds and measuring the angles of JFK's forward and leftward lean in the car.  The bottom line, however, is that a shot from the SN is easily within the margins of error of these measurements and generally fits the left to right and upward path through the head using the upright-forward facing head as the frame of reference.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 15, 2023, 06:30:59 PM
No. That was my previous post.  I explained that the wounds to JFK's head do not require a 60 degree forward lean.  Only about a 38 degree forward lean.CE388 shows JFK's head tilted forward at 52 degrees from the Earth horizontal. It shows the bullet trajectory at what I measure to be 16.9 degrees from Earth horizontal or 52-16.9=35.1 degrees to the head horizontal

If one tilts JFK back about 14 degrees from the position shown in CE388 and adds the 3 degrees of the car downward slope,  it fits the path to the SN of about 11.25 degrees to the car horizontal :

There is, of course, a bit of uncertainty of a few degrees due to uncertainty to the precise location of the wounds and measuring the angles of JFK's forward and leftward lean in the car.  The bottom line, however, is that a shot from the SN is easily within the margins of error of these measurements and generally fits the left to right and upward path through the head using the upright-forward facing head as the frame of reference.

You say CE 388 shows a 52-degree forward head tilt. A bunch of other people have said it's closer to 57-59 degrees. But, hey, let's just say 52 degrees for the sake of argument. The point is that no footage or photo shows his tilted as far forward and downward as CE 388 shows it.

I had the angle through the head at around 26.5 degrees because I had the entrance a bit higher in the back and the exit a bit farther to the front.

And, again, your claims about angles are a waste of time until you deal with the problems with the two proposed rear head entry wounds. You had "the entrance a bit higher." A "bit higher"?? Is there no end to how often you guys have to fiddle with wound locations and ignore your own experts?

Let's revisit the issues with the cowlick site and the EOP site:

-- Dr. Finck advised the ARRB that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, from inside and outside the skull, but those photos never made it into the official record. Dr. Finck himself noted to the ARRB that those photos were not in the collection of autopsy photos that he examined.

-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points, and given the fact that they reflected the scalp and examined the wound in the skull.

-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it.

-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- One of the HSCA's radiologic consultants, Dr. David O. Davis, noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the high fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

-- The back-of-head fragments are below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means they could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the back-of-head fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

-- Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

Quote
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)

-- Humes, Finck, Boswell, the guys who actually handled the skull and saw the entry wound up close, insisted that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was not the entry wound. Two of the three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the red spot is not a bullet entry wound.

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the supposed cowlick entry wound. This has been confirmed by Dr. Robert Artwohl and by Dr. David Mantik, both of whom have studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives. As neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley notes, "What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)). How could the cerebral cortex be intact just beneath the cowlick site if a bullet penetrated there?

-- We should keep in mind that the autopsy doctors identified the rear head entry wound both by its presence in the scalp and by its beveled presence in the skull directly beneath the scalp wound.

-- Only the EOP entry site can explain the subcortical damage, as Dr. Riley and other experts have explained. The subcortical damage is separate from the cortical damage and is well below the cowlick site.

-- The 11/22/63 autopsy face sheet marked by Dr. Boswell puts the entry wound very near the EOP and just slightly above ear level, whereas the cowlick entry site is at least 3 inches above ear level.

-- Dr. Sturdivan has noted another problem with the cowlick entry site: The autopsy skull x-rays show extensive cracks/fractures extending down from the cowlick site, but wound ballistics tests show no such extensive cracking extending from entry holes. Sturdivan notes that not one of the Biophysics Lab test skulls showed extensive cracking from the entry wounds, even though those skulls were dried, post-mortem skulls and were more brittle than live skulls (JFK Myths, pp. 193-194).

Again, are we starting to realize why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has rejected the cowlick entry site?

However, if you are using the EOP entry site, then you need to address (1) the drastic contradictions between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos, and (2) the EOP site's inability to explain the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments. If you're willing to admit that the autopsy brain photos are clearly fraudulent and impossible, then the only remaining issues are the high fragment trail and the back-of-head fragments, and those problems go away if you acknowledge that two bullets hit the head.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 17, 2023, 03:50:44 AM
There isn't a valid trajectory from the SN that enters the back of JFK's head and exits the right side of his forehead at the hairline as shown in the following autopsy photo (cut away by Humes via some post mortem surgery):

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg)

And what happened to the gaping hole at the right occipital region of the back of JFK's head? Too many prominent medical personnel saw it and noted it. This was clearly an exit wound and the entrance wound at JFK's hairline was cut out to move the alleged exit wound to the center of the head as depicted by CE 388, which was pure horsesh*t.

So if this was actually a frontal shot given JFK's head tilt then the shot must have come from the overpass.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

For those who contend that JFK's head moved forward from this shot, according to James Files, there were 2 near simultaneous shots that struck JFK at the "turkey shoot point" and perhaps more that missed. A designated turkey shoot point disguises many simultaneous shots to sound like a single shot. James used a hand held Fireball that shot a frangible bullet from the knoll, which entered the right side of JFK's head causing a right temple blowout after the bullet exploded. Files' frangible bullet dictated how the head moved according to the force of an uneven explosion.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout2.jpg)

There were likely some token shots taken from the TSBD or the DalTex buildings, possibly using the Mauser, which struck Connelly but not JFK. The kill shots would come from the front. The Magic Bullet also came from the front because there isn't a trajectory from the SN, 17 degrees from hz, entering JFK's back at T1 and out his throat at C7. You can prove it to yourself with 2 lasers.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png)

Line up the laser at C7 in the front and note where the rear laser strikes your back, which is not at T1, since you would need to have your head almost between your legs to make that trajectory viable.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png)

The fact that the small throat wound was disguised to not look like an entrance wound means that's exactly what it was, a shot from the front. It took a downward trajectory from C7 to T1 and definitely struck the T1 vertebrae.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif)

When the Magic Bullet struck the T1 vertebrae it broke up into several pieces and exited the back in fragments. The biggest fragment was pointed out to be a single entrance wound, which the WC tried to move up past T1 into the neck vertebrae because they knew the MB's trajectory from T1 to C7 was not feasible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Here is the MB's trajectory from the front, which fits all the angles.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png)

Mystery solved.  :)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 17, 2023, 04:05:58 PM
There isn't a valid trajectory from the SN that enters the back of JFK's head and exits the right side of his forehead at the hairline as shown in the following autopsy photo (cut away by Humes via some post mortem surgery):

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg)

And what happened to the gaping hole at the right occipital region of the back of JFK's head? Too many prominent medical personnel saw it and noted it. This was clearly an exit wound and the entrance wound at JFK's hairline was cut out to move the alleged exit wound to the center of the head as depicted by CE 388, which was pure horsesh*t.

So if this was actually a frontal shot given JFK's head tilt then the shot must have come from the overpass.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

For those who contend that JFK's head moved forward from this shot, according to James Files, there were 2 near simultaneous shots that struck JFK at the "turkey shoot point" and perhaps more that missed. A designated turkey shoot point disguises many simultaneous shots to sound like a single shot. James used a hand held Fireball that shot a frangible bullet from the knoll, which entered the right side of JFK's head causing a right temple blowout after the bullet exploded. Files' frangible bullet dictated how the head moved according to the force of an uneven explosion.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout2.jpg)

There were likely some token shots taken from the TSBD or the DalTex buildings, possibly using the Mauser, which struck Connelly but not JFK. The kill shots would come from the front. The Magic Bullet also came from the front because there isn't a trajectory from the SN, 17 degrees from hz, entering JFK's back at T1 and out his throat at C7. You can prove it to yourself with 2 lasers.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png)

Line up the laser at C7 in the front and note where the rear laser strikes your back, which is not at T1, since you would need to have your head almost between your legs to make that trajectory viable.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png)

The fact that the small throat wound was disguised to not look like an entrance wound means that's exactly what it was, a shot from the front. It took a downward trajectory from C7 to T1 and definitely struck the T1 vertebrae.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif)

When the Magic Bullet struck the T1 vertebrae it broke up into several pieces and exited the back in fragments. The biggest fragment was pointed out to be a single entrance wound, which the WC tried to move up past T1 into the neck vertebrae because they knew the MB's trajectory from T1 to C7 was not feasible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Here is the MB's trajectory from the front, which fits all the angles.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png)

Mystery solved.  :)

There isn't a valid trajectory from the SN that enters the back of JFK's head and exits the right side of his forehead at the hairline as shown in the following autopsy photo (cut away by Humes via some post mortem surgery):


The trajectory from the SN where the rifle and shells were found and the witnesses stated the shots came from is the only valid trajectory ever presented. The only mystery in this is why continually present made up theories that are not even remotely possible.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 17, 2023, 06:38:53 PM

The trajectory from the SN where the rifle and shells were found and the witnesses stated the shots came from is the only valid trajectory ever presented. The only mystery in this is why continually present made up theories that are not even remotely possible.

Show me the geometry of the "only valid trajectory ever presented", if you can. My impossible "made up theories" are based on photogrammetric analyses of the Zapruder film and the geometry of the crime scene. Your opinions appear to come from your LNer gut. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 17, 2023, 11:05:52 PM
There isn't a valid trajectory from the SN that enters the back of JFK's head and exits the right side of his forehead at the hairline as shown in the following autopsy photo (cut away by Humes via some post mortem surgery):

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg)

And what happened to the gaping hole at the right occipital region of the back of JFK's head? Too many prominent medical personnel saw it and noted it. This was clearly an exit wound and the entrance wound at JFK's hairline was cut out to move the alleged exit wound to the center of the head as depicted by CE 388, which was pure horsesh*t.

There is no gaping wound at the very back of the right-side skull. In the 1980s, some Parkland doctors were shown this drawing, the only un-cropped (out of public taste) drawing of the head made available by the HSCA.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/368px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)

Of course, no one at Parkland saw such a viewpoint. I don't know if the person who showed them such a photo anticipated they would not say "Yeah, that's exactly what I saw". A few years later, four Parkland doctors were shown the full range of autopsy photos (including viewpoints they could compare to their memories) at the National Archives and all said the pictures were as they remembered the wounds they had seen in 1963.

Quote
So if this was actually a frontal shot given JFK's head tilt then the shot must have come from the overpass.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

For those who contend that JFK's head moved forward from this shot, according to James Files, there were 2 near simultaneous shots that struck JFK at the "turkey shoot point" and perhaps more that missed. A designated turkey shoot point disguises many simultaneous shots to sound like a single shot. James used a hand held Fireball that shot a frangible bullet from the knoll, which entered the right side of JFK's head causing a right temple blowout after the bullet exploded. Files' frangible bullet dictated how the head moved according to the force of an uneven explosion.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_temple_blowout2.jpg)

Please seek help.

Quote
There were likely some token shots taken from the TSBD or the DalTex buildings, possibly using the Mauser, which struck Connelly but not JFK. The kill shots would come from the front. The Magic Bullet also came from the front because there isn't a trajectory from the SN, 17 degrees from hz, entering JFK's back at T1 and out his throat at C7. You can prove it to yourself with 2 lasers.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png)

Line up the laser at C7 in the front and note where the rear laser strikes your back, which is not at T1, since you would need to have your head almost between your legs to make that trajectory viable.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png)

First of all, you got the trajectory backwards. It's C7 at the back (actually base of the back of the neck, per autopsy report) and T1 at the throat (per autopsy photo showing it just above the clavicles).

(https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/images/org/health/articles/16877-clavicle)  (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/A_picture_of_President_Kennedy%27s_head_and_shoulders_taken_at_the_autopsy.jpg)

Here's Jack doing the laser experiment. Charles Collins did it with commercial-grade equipment and had different results.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/f4/3a/5ISb3G4r_o.jpg)

Quote
The fact that the small throat wound was disguised to not look like an entrance wound means that's exactly what it was, a shot from the front. It took a downward trajectory from C7 to T1 and definitely struck the T1 vertebrae.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif)

When the Magic Bullet struck the T1 vertebrae it broke up into several pieces and exited the back in fragments. The biggest fragment was pointed out to be a single entrance wound, which the WC tried to move up past T1 into the neck vertebrae because they knew the MB's trajectory from T1 to C7 was not feasible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Here is the MB's trajectory from the front, which fits all the angles.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png)

Mystery solved.  :)

(http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT.png)

Here's the image referred to at the end of the quote. Compare again the height of the neck wound ("Entrance C7") above the clavicles in Jack's picture with the real height of the neck wound above the clavicles in the autopsy photo.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/A_picture_of_President_Kennedy%27s_head_and_shoulders_taken_at_the_autopsy.jpg)

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 18, 2023, 07:23:52 AM
Show me the geometry of the "only valid trajectory ever presented", if you can. My impossible "made up theories" are based on photogrammetric analyses of the Zapruder film and the geometry of the crime scene. Your opinions appear to come from your LNer gut. Good luck with that.

The geometry has been done to death.

No, you just prefer your opinion, you are presenting a preconceived personal notion of how you want it to be instead of adjusting your opinion to the existing facts. In the end you present a shot that only you think is even a possibility, totally void of any other corroboration of any kind.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 18, 2023, 01:16:51 PM
The trajectory from the SN where the rifle and shells were found and the witnesses stated the shots came from is the only valid trajectory ever presented. The only mystery in this is why continually present made up theories that are not even remotely possible.

And people wonder how there can be a Flat Earth Society in our day. Are you aware that there are two very different SN-to-head trajectories, i.e., the WC's and the HSCA's? Which one do you accept?

The WC experts said the bullet struck JFK's head "slightly above" and 2.5 cm (1 inch) to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). (Finck indicated to the HSCA that "slightly above" was 1 cm, or 4/10ths of an inch.) But the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel said that the bullet struck 10 cm higher (or 3.9 inches higher), and that the autopsy doctors had committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking a wound in the cowlick, clearly above the lambda, for a wound that was 10 cm lower, slightly above the EOP, even though they reflected the scalp and had good reference points for locating the wound (the EOP, the hairline, and the lambda).

Obviously, the entry wound site that you choose will have a huge impact on the trajectory that you try to trace back to the sixth-floor window (SN).

The WC experts said that the EOP entry wound trajected back to the SN. To make the trajectory work, they had to assume that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward (CE 388). However, the HSCA experts produced two conflicting trajectory analyses. The HSCA medical experts found it necessary to assume a forward head tilt of about 27 degrees, but the HSCA trajectory expert, NASA scientist Tom Canning, said that the head was tilted only about 11 degrees forward. Both of the HSCA analyses assumed that the entry wound was the cowlick site.

Which entry site do you accept? If you accept the cowlick site, you need to face the unsolvable problems with the site. But, if you accept the EOP site, you must believe that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, since they categorically rule out the EOP site because they show a virtually undamaged cerebellum and no damage to the rear part of the right occipital lobe. On the other hand, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in/beneath the cowlick site, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.

There is an explanation that resolves all of these and other issues, but it means abandoning the lone-gunman fiction. The explanation is that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, that the cowlick site is not a bullet wound, that two bullets hit the skull, that one of those two bullets hit the right temple (just as was initially reported by White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff), and that the back-of-head fragments are ricochet fragments (just as the Clark Panel privately believed). Once you graduate to this realization, (1) the two very different wound paths in the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage--pose no problem; (2) the high fragment trail poses no problem; (3) the undamaged cerebral cortex in/under the cowlick site poses no problem; and (4) the back-of-head fragments pose no problem.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 18, 2023, 03:30:06 PM
And people wonder how there can be a Flat Earth Society in our day. Are you aware that there are two very different SN-to-head trajectories, i.e., the WC's and the HSCA's? Which one do you accept?

The WC experts said the bullet struck JFK's head "slightly above" and 2.5 cm (1 inch) to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). (Finck indicated to the HSCA that "slightly above" was 1 cm, or 4/10ths of an inch.) But the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel said that the bullet struck 10 cm higher (or 3.9 inches higher), and that the autopsy doctors had committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking a wound in the cowlick, clearly above the lambda, for a wound that was 10 cm lower, slightly above the EOP, even though they reflected the scalp and had good reference points for locating the wound (the EOP, the hairline, and the lambda).

Obviously, the entry wound site that you choose will have a huge impact on the trajectory that you try to trace back to the sixth-floor window (SN).

The WC experts said that the EOP entry wound trajected back to the SN. To make the trajectory work, they had to assume that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward (CE 388). However, the HSCA experts produced two conflicting trajectory analyses. The HSCA medical experts found it necessary to assume a forward head tilt of about 27 degrees, but the HSCA trajectory expert, NASA scientist Tom Canning, said that the head was tilted only about 11 degrees forward. Both of the HSCA analyses assumed that the entry wound was the cowlick site.

Which entry site do you accept? If you accept the cowlick site, you need to face the unsolvable problems with the site. But, if you accept the EOP site, you must believe that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, since they categorically rule out the EOP site because they show a virtually undamaged cerebellum and no damage to the rear part of the right occipital lobe. On the other hand, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in/beneath the cowlick site, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.

There is an explanation that resolves all of these and other issues, but it means abandoning the lone-gunman fiction. The explanation is that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, that the cowlick site is not a bullet wound, that two bullets hit the skull, that one of those two bullets hit the right temple (just as was initially reported by White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff), and that the back-of-head fragments are ricochet fragments (just as the Clark Panel privately believed). Once you graduate to this realization, (1) the two very different wound paths in the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage--pose no problem; (2) the high fragment trail poses no problem; (3) the undamaged cerebral cortex in/under the cowlick site poses no problem; and (4) the back-of-head fragments pose no problem.

Flat Earth Society? I did not know they had a society. I like that maybe I will have to join. It pales in comparison to people who believe the Earth is 7000 years old with the Romans interacting with the dinosaurs.

Your only point in this long-winded post is the position of JFK’s head and where did the bullet strike the back of the head? That is it? The essential facts still are there was a shot having been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD striking JFK in the head. You are having a problem with their interpretations? You think these experts should all have agreed exactly on how they determined JFK’s position and LHO’s position and the effect of the bullet? Really? 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 18, 2023, 04:07:47 PM
Flat Earth Society? I did not know they had a society. I like that maybe I will have to join. It pales in comparison to people who believe the Earth is 7000 years old with the Romans interacting with the dinosaurs.

Humm, so you think that believing in a 7K-year-old Earth is far worse than believing in a flat Earth? Personally, I reject the young Earth view and believe the Earth is far older than 7K years, but one must admit that carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. On the other hand, the Flat Earth Society claims that all the thousands of photos and videos of the Earth have been faked or doctored.

Your only point in this long-winded post is the position of JFK’s head and where did the bullet strike the back of the head? That is it?

"That is it"?? A difference of 10 cm in the entry wound's location and a difference of 20-plus degrees in the head's forward tilt are enormous factors and issues. They are not trivial details but major, crucial factors. 

The essential facts still are there was a shot having been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD striking JFK in the head. You are having a problem with their interpretations? You think these experts should all have agreed exactly on how they determined JFK’s position and LHO’s position and the effect of the bullet? Really?

No, "the essential facts" are most certainly not "still there." Do you not grasp the fact that a 10-cm difference in the entry site's location and a 20-plus-degree difference in the head's forward tilt are gigantic and mutually incompatible differences?

I notice you ducked the issue of which entry site you're using. Why is that?

Again, if you use the cowlick site, you must face the unsolvable problems with that site, starting with the fact that accepting that site means you must reject the authenticity of the top-of-head autopsy photos because they show intact cerebral cortex at that same location, which is obviously impossible if a bullet entered there.

But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 18, 2023, 06:18:41 PM
Again, if you use the cowlick site, you must face the unsolvable problems with that site, starting with the fact that accepting that site means you must reject the authenticity of the top-of-head autopsy photos because they show intact cerebral cortex at that same location, which is obviously impossible if a bullet entered there.

I can see the cortex in the top-of-the-head autopsy photos but where is the cowlick-level site? Could you point to the cowlick entry site in that photo?

Quote
But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.

The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?  :D

(https://media.gettyimages.com/id/615318314/it/foto/drawing-of-john-f-kennedys-brain-included-as-an-exhibit-for-the-house-assassinations-committee.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=QA2z99S5oWXB3FTzinMrSneBejozXTjxKNrL2bV1u2I=)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 18, 2023, 11:03:06 PM
I can see the cortex in the top-of-the-head autopsy photos but where is the cowlick-level site? Could you point to the cowlick entry site in that photo?

LOL! Uh, that's the point! It's not there! Sheesh. In the top-of-head photos, intact cerebral cortex is in/just below the very same location where the back-of-head photo shows the red spot, but the red spot is not there in the top-of-head photos, and instead we see only exposed and intact cerebral cortex, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.

I don't know how much more simply I can explain the problem. I thought the problem was already quite clear. Do you understand now?

This howler is almost as bad as your next one below.

The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?  :D

When you blunder this badly, it doesn't help that you throw in bigotry on top of your blunder.

Yes, the autopsy photos show the right cerebrum virtually intact--it's lacerated but appears to be missing only a tiny fraction of its substance. Umm, but this poses no problem for the EOP entry site. I said that the autopsy photos show the cerebellum virtually intact. I said nothing about the right cerebrum, which is a totally different part of the brain (and also looks very different than the cerebellum). Allow me to quote the very sentence from my reply that you quoted and answered with your blundering argument:

But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location. (Emphasis added)

How did you get "right cerebrum" from "cerebellum"? Do you not have access to a basic brain diagram? Again, the cerebellum is a different part of the brain. It is below the cerebrum and looks very different than the cerebrum.

It is amazing that you, who pretends to be a serious student of the JFK medical evidence, could make such an embarrassing blunder about such a basic issue.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 18, 2023, 11:25:36 PM
LOL! Uh, that's the point! It's not there! Sheesh. In the top-of-head photos, intact cerebral cortex is in/just below the very same location where the back-of-head photo shows the red spot, but the red spot is not there in the top-of-head photos, and instead we see only exposed and intact cerebral cortex, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.

I don't know how much more simply I can explain the problem. I thought the problem was already quite clear. Do you understand now?

This howler is almost as bad as your next one below.

Thanks. Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area. You really got some grasp of perspective and sightline analysis.  ::)

Quote
When you blunder this badly, it doesn't help that you throw in bigotry on top of your blunder.

Yes, the autopsy photos show the right cerebrum virtually intact--it's lacerated but appears to be missing only a tiny fraction of its substance. Umm, but this poses no problem for the EOP entry site. I said that the autopsy photos show the cerebellum virtually intact. I said nothing about the right cerebrum, which is a totally different part of the brain (and also looks very different than the cerebellum). Allow me to quote the very sentence from my reply that you quoted and answered with your blundering argument:

But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location. (Emphasis added)

How did you get "right cerebrum" from "cerebellum"? Do you not have access to a basic brain diagram? Again, the cerebellum is a different part of the brain. It is below the cerebrum and looks very different than the cerebrum.

It is amazing that you, who pretends to be a serious student of the JFK medical evidence, could make such an embarrassing blunder about such a basic issue.

Well. So now you think the right-rear occiptal lobe (to which I was referring to) is cerebellum.  :D

Anybody can see the cerebellum is intact in the drawing I posted.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 18, 2023, 11:52:59 PM
Thanks. Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area. You really got some grasp of perspective and sightline analysis.

Read: You'd rather lie than admit you goofed. As I have pointed out several times, even Dr. Joe Riley, a neuroanatomist, has noted that the intact cerebral cortex visible in the top-of-head photos is in the exact same location as the high entry wound identified by the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP.

Surely you're not going to pretend that you don't know that this wound is commonly referred to as the cowlick entry site, are you? Surely you're not going to pretend you don't know that the HSCA FPP referred to the wound as being in the "cowlick" area, are you? Are you really asking people to believe such an obvious juvenile lie?

Well. So now you think the right-rear occiptal lobe (to which I was referring to) is cerebellum.  :D

HUH? What part of my reply could lead you to make such a silly, dishonest claim? Let's read what I wrote again:

But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.

Did you catch the "and" between "cerebellum" and "right-rear occipital lobe"? How could you misconstrue this as even implying that the right-rear occipital lobe is cerebellum? How?

Clearly, you're just lying because you don't want to admit you severely goofed.

Anybody can see the cerebellum is intact in the drawing I posted.

LOL! Yeah, uh-huh. You're acting like a nine-year-old who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and who is comically trying to deny it.

How many times in this thread have I explained that you cannot accept the EOP entry site if you don't reject the autopsy brain photos because those photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and the righty-rear occipital lobe and because any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe?

You are so poorly versed on the basics of the medical evidence that you somehow misconstrued "cerebellum" and/or "right-rear occipital lobe" as "right cerebrum." Again, Google a brain diagram and learn the basics before you embarrass yourself again.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 12:20:53 AM
Read: You'd rather lie than admit you goofed. As I have pointed out several times, even Dr. Joe Riley, a neuroanatomist, has noted that the intact cerebral cortex visible in the top-of-head photos is in the exact same location as the high entry wound identified by the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP.

Well, then, your "neuroanatomist" is as ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis as you are. BTW, don't shift the blame onto a dead man; you--supposedly an expert in photogrammetry and perspective---failed to check Riley's claim. Not only that you highlighted it in your wrapped propaganda.

Quote
Surely you're not going to pretend that you don't know that this wound is commonly referred to as the cowlick entry site, are you? Surely you're not going to pretend you don't know that the HSCA FPP referred to the wound as being in the "cowlick" area, are you? Are you really asking people to believe such an obvious juvenile lie?

I'm not going to go along with your fantasy that the cowlick entry site occured in the vertex area.

Quote
HUH? What part of my reply could lead you to make such a silly, dishonest claim? Let's read what I wrote again:

But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.

Did you catch the "and" between "cerebellum" and "right-rear occipital lobe"?

Oh, I noticed the word "and". That's why I was referring to the "right-rear occipital lobe" being damaged. Anyone can look at the brain drawing and see the "right-rear occipital lobe" of cerebrum is damaged (as opposed to your claim it wasn't).

Quote
How could you misconstrue this as even implying that the right-rear occipital lobe is cerebellum? How?

Clearly, you're just lying because you don't want to admit you severely goofed.

No goof on my part. You said an EOP bullet couldn't have gone through the cerebellum and the right-right occipital lobe because they were undamaged.

Quote
LOL! Yeah, uh-huh. You're acting like a nine-year-old who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and who is comically trying to deny it.

How many times in this thread have I explained that you cannot accept the EOP entry site if you don't reject the autopsy brain photos because those photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and the righty-rear occipital lobe and because any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe?

You are so poorly versed on the basics of the medical evidence that you somehow misconstrued "cerebellum" and/or "right-rear occipital lobe" as "right cerebrum." Again, Google a brain diagram and learn the basics before you embarrass yourself again.

You claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged. The brain drawing says otherwise. Since you claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged, I can only conclude you thought it part of the cerebellum.

Are you wearing your sacred Mormon underwear on your head?  :D
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 19, 2023, 03:57:17 AM
LOL! Uh, that's the point! It's not there! Sheesh. In the top-of-head photos, intact cerebral cortex is in/just below the very same location where the back-of-head photo shows the red spot, but the red spot is not there in the top-of-head photos, and instead we see only exposed and intact cerebral cortex, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.
In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there. 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 19, 2023, 07:31:01 AM
Humm, so you think that believing in a 7K-year-old Earth is far worse than believing in a flat Earth? Personally, I reject the young Earth view and believe the Earth is far older than 7K years, but one must admit that carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. On the other hand, the Flat Earth Society claims that all the thousands of photos and videos of the Earth have been faked or doctored.

"That is it"?? A difference of 10 cm in the entry wound's location and a difference of 20-plus degrees in the head's forward tilt are enormous factors and issues. They are not trivial details but major, crucial factors. 

No, "the essential facts" are most certainly not "still there." Do you not grasp the fact that a 10-cm difference in the entry site's location and a 20-plus-degree difference in the head's forward tilt are gigantic and mutually incompatible differences?

I notice you ducked the issue of which entry site you're using. Why is that?

Again, if you use the cowlick site, you must face the unsolvable problems with that site, starting with the fact that accepting that site means you must reject the authenticity of the top-of-head autopsy photos because they show intact cerebral cortex at that same location, which is obviously impossible if a bullet entered there.

But, if you accept the EOP site, you must admit that the autopsy brain photos are bogus because they show a virtually pristine cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe, which is obviously absurd if a bullet entered at that location.

Flat Earth at least has an understandable origin from a time when people simply did not know. As near as I can tell a 7000 years old Earth is a modern literal biblical interpretation complete with all the nutty additions to make it sound real. I went through 50 years never hearing of either Flat Earth or a 7000 year old Earth. Now in the last 15+ years I have heard of both beliefs firsthand from people who should have known better. I am beginning to think the world is regressing.

Unless I am missing something, CE 884 is just a picture illustration. An artist’s rendition. There is not a single notation on the picture anywhere that would lead a person to believe it was some kind of aid in determining an angular scale. Where did you come up with 60 degrees other than divining the illustration?

 Every report I ever read explains in great detail what took place. Where is the question here? The bullet entered the back of his head destroyed the right side of his brain and fractured his skull right into his sinuses and blew out the right side of his head. In the course of the bullet doing all this damage it disintegrated into multiple pieces. Where is the problem understanding this?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 19, 2023, 02:10:28 PM
Let's peel through your layers of falsehood and evasion by going back to the first comment in your previous reply:

Thanks. Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area. You really got some grasp of perspective and sightline analysis.

Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.

Just FYI, I've been talking about the problems with the cowlick entry site for over 20 years, starting with my 1998 article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?" (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ)).

Well, then, your "neuroanatomist" is as ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis as you are. BTW, don't shift the blame onto a dead man; you--supposedly an expert in photogrammetry and perspective---failed to check Riley's claim. Not only that you highlighted it in your wrapped propaganda. I'm not going to go along with your fantasy that the cowlick entry site occured in the vertex area. 

LOL! So now you, one of the most discredited and bungling clowns on any JFK forum--now you are going to call Dr. Joseph N. Riley "ignorant" and argue that he put the cowlick wound at the vertex?! I'm almost tempted to ask if you are a secret WC critic who is trying to make all lone-gunman theorists look bad.

Do you know who Dr. Riley was? He was a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the State University of New York, in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California, and in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Florida. He had papers published in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, in the Brain Research Bulletin, and in Science, and his work was cited in those journals and in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

And yet you are actually getting on a public board and claiming that he put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex based on his analysis of the intact cerebral cortex in the top-of-head autopsy photos! Just wow. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Let me post some of the observations that Dr. Riley wrote in his articles or posted in JFK discussions in Google Groups, which I included way back in 1998 in my article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?":

------------------------------
The HSCA says the scalp wound is 13 cm above the first prominent crease in the neck. [Let me go off on a tangent. Just how stupid can these people be? The scalp wound is 13 cm above lower/mid-neck, but that is supposed to be 10 cm above the EOP. Therefore, the EOP is 3 cm above the lower/mid-neck! Using the ruler in the photo, you can measure and 3 cm won't even put you at the level of the skull! Anyway, back to our story....]

On the scale drawing, 13 cm from the same location (more or less) puts you "slightly above the EOP" just where Humes et al placed it. . . .

The ruler is marked out in 0.5 cm gradations; you can make these out on clear copies of Dox's drawing. The Clark Panel/HSCA says that this wound is 10 cm above the EOP. So, what happens when we measure 10 cm "down" from the scalp wound? Are we anywhere close to the EOP? Nope, we're in the neck, missing the skull entirely. . . .

In the top-of-head autopsy photos, intact cerebral cortex is visible, as confirmed by both Dr. Bob Artwohl and Dr. Mantik. What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobe) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site. . . .

We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible).

What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound--so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html);   https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ))
----------------------------------

Oh, I noticed the word "and". That's why I was referring to the "right-rear occipital lobe" being damaged. Anyone can look at the brain drawing and see the "right-rear occipital lobe" of cerebrum is damaged (as opposed to your claim it wasn't).

What a hoot. You really should just stop with this juvenile dissembling, and bungling, and just admit you blundered.

"Cerebrum" refers to an area that contains two lobes of the brain. The cerebrum consists of the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe. The rear-bottom part of the occipital lobe is right next to the cerebellum.

Any bullet that hit at the EOP site at any kind of a downward angle would have torn through the right-rear part of the occipital lobe and the cerebellum. The HSCA FPP experts hammered the autopsy doctors on this point and stressed this point as one of their main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. You appear to be unaware of what the HSCA medical experts said about the condition of the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe.

Dr. Loquvam hammered Finck with the point that he could see no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum. The only damage that anyone has seen to the cerebellum in the autopsy brain photos is a tiny piece of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum. Other than that, the cerebellum is intact and undamaged. Loquvam pointed out to Finck that the brain photos do not even show bleeding from/in the cerebellum. And when Loquvam asked Finck to explain how the cerebellum could be in this condition if a bullet had entered at the EOP site, Finck finally said, "I don't know."

Have you not read the transcript of the HSCA testimony of Finck, Boswell, and Humes? How can you not know this stuff and then pretend you have any business talking about the medical evidence?

BTW, it should be noted that Finck later told the ARRB that he saw "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. He did not raise this point when the HSCA FPP was trying to get him to renounce the EOP entry site. Had he done so, this would have directly challenged the accuracy/authenticity of the brain photos, and apparently Finck was unwilling to ignite a firestorm with the HSCA medical experts.

No goof on my part. You said an EOP bullet couldn't have gone through the cerebellum and the right-right occipital lobe because they were undamaged.

You claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged. The brain drawing says otherwise. Since you claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged, I can only conclude you thought it part of the cerebellum.

LOL! If you were so stupid as to reach such a comical, ridiculous conclusion from my comments, that is just further proof that you have no business talking about the JFK case. However, I don't believe you. I don't believe you were so clueless as to conclude that I thought the occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum. I think it is obvious that you just blundered and that you're trying to blame your blunder on me.

You claim that the brain drawing shows damage to the right-rear occipital lobe. Huh, that's curious, because the HSCA medical experts said the opposite. As I've noted, you don't seem to know what the HSCA FPP experts said about the right-rear occipital lobe and the cerebellum.

FPP member Dr. Charles Petty raised two objections to the EOP site based on the autopsy brain photos, one of which was the condition of the cerebellum. He put his other objection to Humes and Boswell, noting that the brain photos show no damage to the rear part of the “occipital lobes” (also known as the singular “occipital lobe”). I quote:

------------------------------
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)
-------------------------------

Again, have you not read the HSCA volumes? How can you not know this stuff?

Are you wearing your sacred Mormon underwear on your head?  :D

Such a comment once again shows that, in addition to being a liar, you're a crude, bigoted jerk.

In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there.

This misses/avoids the point. The point is that the part of the cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site is undamaged, which obviously proves that no bullet entered at that spot. Yes, the red spot is not visible in the top-of-head photos, as I have previously noted, but the cerebral cortex is undamaged in exactly the same spot where the red spot would be if the scalp were in its normal position, in exactly the same spot where the high entry wound was supposedly located.

I don’t know how much more plainly I can explain this. If a bullet entered at the Clark Panel/HSCA revised entry site, aka the high entry wound/the cowlick entry wound—if a bullet entered at this location, then there cannot be intact cerebral cortex directly beneath this entry point. It is impossible. A bullet could not have entered at the cowlick site without doing considerable damage to the underlying cerebral cortex.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM
Let's peel through your layers of falsehood and evasion by going back to the first comment in your previous reply:

Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.

Just FYI, I've been talking about the problems with the cowlick entry site for over 20 years, starting with my 1998 article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?" (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ)).

(https://images2.imgbox.com/40/61/Nwsc5AY1_o.jpg)

I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.

Quote
LOL! So now you, one of the most discredited and bungling clowns on any JFK forum--now you are going to call Dr. Joseph N. Riley "ignorant" and argue that he put the cowlick wound at the vertex?! I'm almost tempted to ask if you are a secret WC critic who is trying to make all lone-gunman theorists look bad.

Do you know who Dr. Riley was? He was a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the State University of New York, in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California, and in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Florida. He had papers published in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, in the Brain Research Bulletin, and in Science, and his work was cited in those journals and in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

And yet you are actually getting on a public board and claiming that he put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex based on his analysis of the intact cerebral cortex in the top-of-head autopsy photos! Just wow. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.

Quote
What a hoot. You really should just stop with this juvenile dissembling, and bungling, and just admit you blundered.

"Cerebrum" refers to an area that contains two lobes of the brain. The cerebrum consists of the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe. The rear-bottom part of the occipital lobe is right next to the cerebellum.

The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.

Quote
Any bullet that hit at the EOP site at any kind of a downward angle would have torn through the right-rear part of the occipital lobe and the cerebellum. The HSCA FPP experts hammered the autopsy doctors on this point and stressed this point as one of their main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. You appear to be unaware of what the HSCA medical experts said about the condition of the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe.

Dr. Loquvam hammered Finck with the point that he could see no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum. The only damage that anyone has seen to the cerebellum in the autopsy brain photos is a tiny piece of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum. Other than that, the cerebellum is intact and undamaged. Loquvam pointed out to Finck that the brain photos do not even show bleeding from/in the cerebellum. And when Loquvam asked Finck to explain how the cerebellum could be in this condition if a bullet had entered at the EOP site, Finck finally said, "I don't know."

Have you not read the transcript of the HSCA testimony of Finck, Boswell, and Humes? How can you not know this stuff and then pretend you have any business talking about the medical evidence?

Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible. I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.

Quote
BTW, it should be noted that Finck later told the ARRB that he saw "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. He did not raise this point when the HSCA FPP was trying to get him to renounce the EOP entry site. Had he done so, this would have directly challenged the accuracy/authenticity of the brain photos, and apparently Finck was unwilling to ignite a firestorm with the HSCA medical experts.

I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage". Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).

Quote
LOL! If you were so stupid as to reach such a comical, ridiculous conclusion from my comments, that is just further proof that you have no business talking about the JFK case. However, I don't believe you. I don't believe you were so clueless as to conclude that I thought the occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum. I think it is obvious that you just blundered and that you're trying to blame your blunder on me.

You claim that the brain drawing shows damage to the right-rear occipital lobe. Huh, that's curious, because the HSCA medical experts said the opposite. As I've noted, you don't seem to know what the HSCA FPP experts said about the right-rear occipital lobe and the cerebellum.

FPP member Dr. Charles Petty raised two objections to the EOP site based on the autopsy brain photos, one of which was the condition of the cerebellum. He put his other objection to Humes and Boswell, noting that the brain photos show no damage to the rear part of the “occipital lobes” (also known as the singular “occipital lobe”). I quote:

------------------------------
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)
-------------------------------

Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".

Quote
Again, have you not read the HSCA volumes? How can you not know this stuff?

Such a comment once again shows that, in addition to being a liar, you're a crude, bigoted jerk.

Good. Now I can go back to calling you an arrogant p-r-i-c-k.  ::)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 19, 2023, 07:06:49 PM
The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.

Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.

I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.

But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.

I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.

Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.

So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.

Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.

Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?

Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible.

Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.

I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.

The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage".

Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.

Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).

That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.

It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.

Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".

"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM
Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.

I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.

There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.

Quote
But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.

I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.

Quote
So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.

Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.

Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?

I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.

Quote
Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.

The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.

Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.

Quote
When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.

That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.

It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.

The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.

Quote
"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.

On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/40/61/Nwsc5AY1_o.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 20, 2023, 02:07:03 PM
There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.

Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:

--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:

Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus))

The National Institutes of Health:

The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2)))

The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:

Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html))

The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):

The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:

Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum)) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic))

Science Direct:

The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum))

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:

Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover))
--------------------------------------

If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.

I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.

You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."

Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.

I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.

LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!

You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.

Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.

You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.

Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.

BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?

And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos. 

The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.

This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:

---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)
---------------------------------------

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster)).

I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.

More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:

---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------

So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"?  I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.

What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 20, 2023, 03:22:03 PM
Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:

--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:

Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus))

The National Institutes of Health:

The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2)))

The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:

Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html))

The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):

The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:

Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum)) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic))

Science Direct:

The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum))

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:

Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover))
--------------------------------------

If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.

You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items. I see many reputable sites say there are six lobes. Most sites will merely say there are four main lobes. I admit I was wrong, but allow for other people seeing things through different lenses. You lack that ability.

Quote
You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."

Dear Reader. Be my guest: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 . See where Griffith refers to "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum. Griffith is a Mormon apologist and that group has a long history of demeaning people and shutting them down.

Quote
Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.

People on the Forum. What do you think?

Quote
LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!

You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.

You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.

More nitpicking. Obsessive-compulsive.

Quote
Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.

BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?

And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos. 

This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:

---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)

No less a researcher than Pat Speer treats this with caution:

    "Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying
     that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some
     distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when
     one views this photo under the assumption the bone in the foreground shows
     forehead the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been
     reflected at all!"

Humes famously told the HSCA that a piece of tissue (per FPP) near the hairline was an entry wound.

Quote

---------------------------------------

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?

Funny. When Humes supposedly reflected the scalp to expose the cowlick wound area, and Finck wistfully claimed decades later they had taken a picture of a bared skull clean down to the EOP level, where's the picture? Not in the "Military Review" inventory signed by the three pathologists.

Quote
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster)).

I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

"Every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP." Really? Only Humes felt for the EOP and he got it wrong, according to the HSCA. No one else saw or felt for the EOP; they only saw the cowlick wound on the scalp and accepted Humes' EOP placement relative to it.

Quote
More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:

---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------

So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"?  I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.

What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/40/61/Nwsc5AY1_o.jpg)

Is this image not representative of where you contend the cowlick wound is in the Top-of-the-Head Photo? Be clear; what changes are needed? Better yet, post your own graphic showing the area you contend show the cowlick wound almost near the cortex seen in the photo ("the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photo"). The vertex (a must landmark)  must therefore be some distance from the cowlick wound.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 20, 2023, 05:44:18 PM
Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.

Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).

A little more about Dr. Hodges: He began his career as a professor of radiology at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University. He served as president of the American Society of Neuroradiology for two years. He conducted numerous experiments to study the effects on animals and humans of penetrating wounds from high-velocity bullets. He was a highly respected reviewer for the American Journal of Neuroradiology and was a charter member of the Association of University Radiologists and of the American Society of Neuroradiology.

Regarding the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges said the following:

Quote
Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3), pp. 2-3)

These findings were unacceptable because the new official position was that the rear head entry wound was in the right parietal bone, not in the occiput, that it was visibly above and to the right of the lambda, a whopping 10 cm (4 inches) above the location identified by the autopsy doctors.

Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by several experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with optical density measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays.

Further confirmation of this comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show no more than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing, as even Bugliosi and Baden freely acknowledged.

It is not surprising that the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that he was certain that the brain photos in evidence are not the brain photos that he took.


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 20, 2023, 10:52:34 PM
Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.

Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).
No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 21, 2023, 12:18:49 PM
No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.

No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said again:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 21, 2023, 03:27:51 PM
No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said again:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.

In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 21, 2023, 04:44:54 PM
You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items. I see many reputable sites say there are six lobes. Most sites will merely say there are four main lobes. I admit I was wrong, but allow for other people seeing things through different lenses. You lack that ability.

Wow, such dishonesty. Several replies ago, I said that we had both made statements about the cerebrum's lobes that were incorrect and was prepared to leave it at that, but you just couldn't let it go, and so you replied with your six-lobes argument. You are the one who "must have your way with even the most trivial items."

Dear Reader. Be my guest: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 . See where Griffith refers to "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum. Griffith is a Mormon apologist and that group has a long history of demeaning people and shutting them down. People on the Forum. What do you think?

They think you're a childish liar who repeatedly discredits himself by offering juvenile excuses and denials when you’re caught making embarrassing blunders.

I made the factual observation that the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe are virtually undamaged in the autopsy brain photos (my exact words were that they are "virtually pristine" in the brain photos). You claimed I was wrong because the "right cerebrum" is damaged in the brain drawing. Let's read what you said, again:

Quote
The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?

You clearly did not understand that the cerebellum is not part of the right cerebrum. You also clearly did not realize that the right-rear occipital lobe is only a small part of the right cerebrum.

When I pointed out your blunder, you came up with the childish lie that you said "right cerebrum" because you somehow thought that I believed that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as separate areas.

No less a researcher than Pat Speer treats this with caution:

    "Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying
     that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some
     distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when
     one views this photo under the assumption the bone in the foreground shows
     forehead the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been
     reflected at all!"

Holy cow, what brazen dishonesty.

Dear Reader, be advised that in the chapter from which Jerry Organ has cherry-picked this quote, Pat Speer argues against the idea that the scalp was not reflected. Speer spends considerable time arguing that Humes did in fact reflect the scalp and did in fact identify an entry wound in the skull near the EOP.

Earlier in the chapter from which Organ has quoted, Speer paraphrases and rejects Chad Zimmerman's argument that the alleged presence of forehead in the foreground in autopsy photo F8 proves that the cowlick was not reflected. To repeat, Speer rejects this argument. Speer also notes that both of Humes's and Boswell's medical assistants, autopsy photographer John Stringer, and x-ray tech Jerrol Custer supported Humes’s account of reflecting the scalp.

There are two other facts that Jerry Organ failed to mention: In Speer’s online book, the book from which Jerry Organ quotes, Speer ardently, adamantly argues (1) that the rear head entry wound was very near the EOP, and (2) that the cowlick entry site is pure bunk that was fraudulently concocted by the Clark Panel's Russell Fisher and then bogusly endorsed by the HSCA FPP.

Allow me to quote some relevant segments on the reflecting of the scalp and the location of the rear head entry wound from Speer's online book:

----------------------------------------
Dr. Chad Zimmerman, for example, is so convinced the photo shows forehead that he refuses to believe the doctors ever could have thought it was the back of the head. Accordingly, he has convinced himself that the doctors' 1966 description of a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" is not a description of the back of Kennedy's head at all, but a description of the front of his head, showing the interior aspect of the missile wound in the posterior skull, and the scalp reflected over the forehead. Never mind that it says "over entrance in posterior skull," implying that the photo is of tissue just above the skull. Never mind that "following reflection of scalp" modifies "posterior skull" and not "anterior skull" or "forehead." Never mind that the description of this photo fails to mention that, oh yeah, by the way, the entrance it depicts is inside the cranium.

It seems likely that the reflected scalp in the mystery photograph is the scalp at the back of the head, atypically, due to the extensive damage to the right side of the skull, reflected to the left.

This interpretation is confirmed, furthermore, by the statements of Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins, Dr. Humes' and Dr. Boswell's assistants during the autopsy.

The recollections of Jenkins and O'Connor are supported, furthermore, by those of the autopsy's photographer, John Stringer, and its radiology tech, Jerrol Custer.

The scalp was reflected to the left.

Now, there are those who insist doctors wouldn't do such a thing, and that they always reflect the scalp over the forehead, blah, blah, blah.

But this just isn't true. One of the most famous murders of the late 19th century was that of Lt. Cecil Hambrough, who was believed to have been murdered by Alfred Monson, while the two were out hunting with a third person, Edward Scott. This murder caught the public's attention, and led to some of the first forensic studies of gunshot wounds in which scientists fired a murder weapon in order to establish the range from which the fatal weapon had been fired. Dr. Joseph Bell,  the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, assisted in these studies and testified at the trial, immediately after a colleague, Dr. Patrick Watson. In any event, this murder was discussed far and wide, and made its way into Principles of Forensic Medicine, by Dr. William Guy, where the following images were provided.

The damage was restricted to the right, so the scalp was reflected to the left. It's rather elementary when you think of it. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto))

The HSCA's pathology panel claimed a bullet entered the cowlick area at the top of the back of Kennedy's head, and left a small red oval entrance in the cowlick area of the scalp. No such entrance was noted by anyone viewing the President's body. Those noting the entrance swore it was down by the hairline.

Since late 1993, of all the doctors to study the medical evidence deposited at the archives--Dr. Randy Robertson, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, Dr. Robert Kirschner, Dr. James Humes, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Dr. Pierre Finck, Dr. Chad Zimmerman, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Peter Cummings, and Dr. Michael Chesser--and all the doctors to present a major review of the medical evidence in a forensics journal (Dr.s Michael Levy and Robert Grossman in the June 2004 issue of Neurosurgery) only one has supported Fisher's finding the entrance wound was in the cowlick...just one--his fellow Forensic Pathologist Dr. Kirschner--the one most likely to be under the influence of Fisher's reputation. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter20conclusionsandconfusions (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter20conclusionsandconfusions))

[In the next quote, Speer is discussing the fact that Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA FPP, grossly misrepresented Dr. Pierre Finck's HSCA testimony--we should remember that Finck's HSCA testimony was not released until the 1990s.]

A transcript exists, of course, of Dr. Finck's testimony before the HSCA. He said nothing remotely similar to what Dr. Baden told the researchers Finck had told him. In fact, the transcript proves Baden to be mistaken on most every point. Not only had Finck told Baden he'd performed gunshot wound autopsies before, he'd told him he'd arrived at the autopsy after Kennedy's scalp and hair had been reflected from Kennedy's skull. So much, then, for Baden's claim he'd been confused by Kennedy's hair. Finck told Baden, moreover, that he then stepped up and inspected Kennedy's wounds and made sure certain photos were taken of the entrance wound low on Kennedy's skull. Well, this completely destroys Dr. Baden's claim Finck told him he'd "just watched" as well. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13battackoftheclones (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13battackoftheclones))

Gee, Jerry, why didn’t quote any of these statements? Why did you deliberately give the false impression that Speer is not certain that Humes’s reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the skull?

Humes famously told the HSCA that a piece of tissue (per FPP) near the hairline was an entry wound.

"Famously"? Actually, Humes's claim to the HSCA FPP that the white spot was an entry wound is not as bad as the claim that the red spot in the cowlick is an entry wound. Indeed, even Pat Speer argues that the entry wound was near the white spot. The white spot is certainly much closer to the mark than the cowlick site.

Funny. When Humes supposedly reflected the scalp to expose the cowlick wound area, and Finck wistfully claimed decades later they had taken a picture of a bared skull clean down to the EOP level, where's the picture? Not in the "Military Review" inventory signed by the three pathologists.

Oh, so Finck was lying?! Finck just fabricated his account of having standard autopsy pictures taken of the front and back sides of the entry wound?! Never mind that he made it a point to note to the ARRB that those photos were not in the official collection that he examined in late 1966? Never mind that Humes, Karnei, Stringer, Knudsen, and Spencer also said that there were autopsy photos that were not included in the official collection?

"Every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP." Really?


Uh, yes, really. Even Speer, to his credit, acknowledges this fact. He discusses this fact in his arguments against the cowlick site. Since you quote from Speer’s book, one must wonder why you are even asking this question, since, again, Speer acknowledges this fact.

Only Humes felt for the EOP and he got it wrong, according to the HSCA. No one else saw or felt for the EOP; they only saw the cowlick wound on the scalp and accepted Humes' EOP placement relative to it.

This dishonest tale again? You know this is false. For the sake of others, allow me to repeat what the autopsy doctors and several autopsy witnesses explained: the autopsy doctors first identified the rear head entry wound in the scalp, and then they reflected the scalp and found a small hole in the skull directly beneath the scalp wound.

Is this image not representative of where you contend the cowlick wound is in the Top-of-the-Head Photo? Be clear; what changes are needed? Better yet, post your own graphic showing the area you contend show the cowlick wound almost near the cortex seen in the photo ("the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photo"). The vertex (a must landmark)  must therefore be some distance from the cowlick wound.

Just shaking my head. A few days ago, you started making the baffling claim that I put the cowlick site "at the vertex area," even though I was citing Dr. Riley's research on the unsolvable problem posed for the cowlick site by the intact cerebral cortex at that location, and even though he put the site nowhere near the vertex. You said,

Quote
Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area.

I responded by asking you to explain how in the world you could reach such an absurd conclusion, and by noting that the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site.

In reply, you even claimed that Dr. Riley "was ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis." That's mighty bold garbage coming from a guy who thought the cerebellum was part of "the right cerebrum," and who thought that the small area of the right-rear occipital lobe could be described as "the right cerebrum."

You note that the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site, a fact that I’ve been noting for several days, and you childishly pretend that this observation somehow challenges my position.

You disingenuously ask for a graphic that shows where I put the cowlick site, as if I place it somewhere other than where it has always been posited. As I've already told you, I put the cowlick site where everybody else has always put it. If you want a graphic, see Dr. Riley's first graphic in his article "What Struck John" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html) (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)).


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 21, 2023, 09:52:31 PM
Wow, such dishonesty. Several replies ago, I said that we had both made statements about the cerebrum's lobes that were incorrect and was prepared to leave it at that, but you just couldn't let it go, and so you replied with your six-lobes argument. You are the one who "must have your way with even the most trivial items."

Dear Reader. Here's one of my comments on the lobes:

    "There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a
     sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web
     sites refer only to the main four."

No attack on Griffith or appeal to authority. The sixth lobe mentioned in passing. Griffith's reply:

Quote
Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:

--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:

Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)

The National Institutes of Health:

The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))

The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:

Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)

The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):

The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:

Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)

Science Direct:

The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:

Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------

If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.

I guess that why I unfairly said: "You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items."

Quote
They think you're a childish liar who repeatedly discredits himself by offering juvenile excuses and denials when you’re caught making embarrassing blunders.

Really? A lot have chimed in on our discussion, have they? And taken your side?  :D

Quote
I made the factual observation that the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe are virtually undamaged in the autopsy brain photos (my exact words were that they are "virtually pristine" in the brain photos). You claimed I was wrong because the "right cerebrum" is damaged in the brain drawing. Let's read what you said, again:

You clearly did not understand that the cerebellum is not part of the right cerebrum. You also clearly did not realize that the right-rear occipital lobe is only a small part of the right cerebrum.

When I pointed out your blunder, you came up with the childish lie that you said "right cerebrum" because you somehow thought that I believed that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as separate areas.

Griffith keeps rehashing the same old BS. He's thinks he's detected a mistake on my part like when he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion when John used the term "faith based".

BTW, why would I extensively quote or accept large parts of Pat Speer's site, if I'm only interested in one part of it? When you quote from the Warren Report or HSCA, do you add in everything and acknowledge their official conclusions? You suffer from Gish's Gallop, "a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." It was named after a blowhard creationist.

I am glad that you have acknowledged the accuracy of the Riley drawing's location of the cowlick wound. Thank you.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 21, 2023, 11:24:39 PM
Dear Reader. Here's one of my comments on the lobes:

    "There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a
     sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web
     sites refer only to the main four."

No attack on Griffith or appeal to authority. The sixth lobe mentioned in passing. Griffith's reply:

I guess that why I unfairly said: "You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items."

Really? A lot have chimed in on our discussion, have they? And taken your side?  :D

Griffith keeps rehashing the same old BS. He's thinks he's detected a mistake on my part like when he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion when John used the term "faith based".

BTW, why would I extensively quote or accept large parts of Pat Speer's site, if I'm only interested in one part of it? When you quote from the Warren Report or HSCA, do you add in everything and acknowledge their official conclusions? You suffer from Gish's Gallop, "a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." It was named after a blowhard creationist.

I am glad that you have acknowledged the accuracy of the Riley drawing's location of the cowlick wound. Thank you.

Hi Jerry,

For an event that will be forever recorded in the history books as "John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed by a Lone Nut, Lee Harvey Oswald", end of story! Griffith is absolutely losing it, his latest rants are a complete embarrassment, he really needs to stay calm and focus on his interpretation of the evidence.

I can just imagine Griffith sitting "quietly" at his keyboard. Hahahaha!

(https://i.gifer.com/1qst.gif)

Quote
he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion

I had no idea what Griffith's religion is and as I said, I really don't care, and even when I clarified that his faith in this particular situation was based on his irrational belief in a MASSIVE conspiracy he still insisted on calling me a bigot?? Go figure?

Btw at the end of the day Griffith can mindlessly regurgitate as much medical terminology as he likes, but the impossible to fake stereoscopic autopsy photos show a single shot from behind and a massive blowout above the ear(which shows a large amount of missing skull and brain), and these simple facts are reinforced by the impossible to fake Zapruder film. Case Closed!

(https://i.postimg.cc/FR7XqJmv/JFKBOHlatest-700-1.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tJgs2qGJ/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Xv9zrxPZ/Closeup-312-313a.gif)

JohnM



Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 22, 2023, 01:24:33 AM
In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

I take it that you are very new to the JFK case and that you have not bothered to read most of my replies?

What do I think all of this proves? Well, it's very simple: A bullet that entered slightly above and to the right of the EOP could not have been fired from the sixth-floor window. The only way that the WC could get the trajectory to work was to assume that JFK's head was titled over 50 degrees forward, a claim that nobody takes seriously anymore. I'll let lone-gunman theorist Dr. Robert Artwohl give his take on the trajectory problem posed by the EOP entry site:

---------------------------------------
Given the position of the President’s head in frame 312 of the Zapruder film (the moment just before the head burst), for a bullet to enter just above the EOP and exit the right frontotemporoparietal area, it would have had to travel in an upward direction, fired from inside the limousine’s trunk. Not even the most radical or imaginative of the conspirati has supposed a sniper to have been in this location. ("JFK's Assassination: Conspiracy, Forensic Science, and Common Sense," JAMA, March 24/31, 1993, 269:12, p. 1540)
---------------------------------------

Dear Reader. Here's one of my comments on the lobes:

    "There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a
     sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web
     sites refer only to the main four."

No attack on Griffith or appeal to authority. The sixth lobe mentioned in passing. Griffith's reply.

You're lying again. The question is, Why did you reply at all? Why did you feel the need to respond after I said that we had both goofed? Why? Because you just couldn't let it go. In fact, let me quote what I said in my reply:

---------------------------------------
I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.
---------------------------------------

And I said nothing else on the subject in the rest of my reply and was prepared to drop the matter. But then you replied by claiming that there are four "major lobes" and that there are two more deep inside the brain. Why? Because you just had to be right (even though you were wrong). So, I replied that there are five major lobes and cited several expert sources to prove this. And in response you had the nerve to claim that I was the one who had to be right about every minor issue! 

Griffith keeps rehashing the same old BS. He's thinks he's detected a mistake on my part like when he claimed Honest JohnM was referring to his nutty religion when John used the term "faith based".

You're lying again. It's not "BS" at all. It's a simple statement of fact that anyone can easily verify by reading your previous replies, starting with your Reply #152: In response to my factual point that the brain photos show the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe in virtually pristine condition, you claimed that I was wrong because the brain photos show damage to the "right cerebrum," and then you asked if I was wearing my "Mormon underwear too tight."

When I pointed out your blunder and noted that the cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, you answered with the comical claim that you said "right cerebrum" because you thought I was assuming that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as two areas in my replies.

And here you are still refusing to admit that you committed an inexcusable, amateurish blunder. Granted, admitting such a blunder would show that you have no business talking about the medical evidence, but at least you'd be facing your blunder truthfully.

Incidentally, when are you going to address the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? You're still ducking them.

BTW, why would I extensively quote or accept large parts of Pat Speer's site, if I'm only interested in one part of it? When you quote from the Warren Report or HSCA, do you add in everything and acknowledge their official conclusions? You suffer from Gish's Gallop, "a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." It was named after a blowhard creationist.

You're lying again. You deliberately cherry-picked a statement from Speer's online book to give the false impression that Speer has some doubt about whether Humes reflected the scalp and saw the underlying wound in the skull, when in fact, as I proved, Speer has no doubt. But someone who had never read Speer's book would have no idea how dishonestly you quoted him.

Incidentally, when are you going to address the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? You're still ducking them.

I am glad that you have acknowledged the accuracy of the Riley drawing's location of the cowlick wound. Thank you.

You're lying again. I never expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley's location of the cowlick entry site. You did. Dr. Riley located it where everyone has located it. This is a non-issue that you've made up to avoid admitting another blunder.

When I quoted Dr. Riley on the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site, you said Riley was "ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis" and then made the comical claim that by citing Riley's research on the cowlick site I was putting the site "in the vertex area" (Reply #154). I jumped all over you for this astounding gaffe:

---------------------------------------
Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.
---------------------------------------

Your first attempt to explain your blunder was to double-down on it and repeat it, saying that you refused to go along with my "fantasy that the cowlick entry site occurred in the vertex area" (Reply #156), when in fact neither I nor Riley had even remotely implied that the cowlick site was "in the vertex area."

But then, apparently, you realized that your blunder was too obvious to deny and so you changed gears by pretending that my citing of Riley somehow indicated that I was not dealing with the spatial relationship of the cowlick site to the vertex, when I'd said nothing about the vertex and when you were the one who brought up the vertex, even though it has nothing to do with the cowlick site. You just made this up out of thin air as a smokescreen to try to avoid admitting another blunder. Your argument here is a continuation of this childish smokescreen.

So, now that we've exposed your ducking and dodging and dissembling, how do you explain the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site, as Riley discusses in his article and illustrates with his first graphic in the article? How do you explain that?

And how do you square the subcortical damage with the cowlick entry site, especially given the fact that there is no connecting path/cavitation between that damage and the cortical damage?

These are just two of the problems with the cowlick site. You have yet to address any of them. So let's just start with the two above-posed questions regarding (1) the intact cerebral cortex in the cowlick site's location and (2) the subcortical damage far below the cowlick site and the fact that there is no connecting path/cavitation between the cortical and subcortical damage.


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 22, 2023, 01:58:32 AM

MT: In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there.

This misses/avoids the point. The point is that the part of the cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site is undamaged, which obviously proves that no bullet entered at that spot. Yes, the red spot is not visible in the top-of-head photos, as I have previously noted, but the cerebral cortex is undamaged in exactly the same spot where the red spot would be if the scalp were in its normal position, in exactly the same spot where the high entry wound was supposedly located.

I don’t know how much more plainly I can explain this. If a bullet entered at the Clark Panel/HSCA revised entry site, aka the high entry wound/the cowlick entry wound—if a bullet entered at this location, then there cannot be intact cerebral cortex directly beneath this entry point. It is impossible. A bullet could not have entered at the cowlick site without doing considerable damage to the underlying cerebral cortex.
You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area  where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the  everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.

BTW:

Jerry O:
You have the vertex located to far forwards on JFK's head. In the TotH photo, you can see the top/front of the right temporal flap (as seen in the other photos) partially open. The vertex is well behind that. The vertex is closer to where to put the cowlick site than where you indicaste. 


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 22, 2023, 02:09:29 AM
You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area  where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the  everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.

BTW:

Jerry O:
You have the vertex located to far forwards on JFK's head. In the TotH photo, you can see the top/front of the right temporal flap (as seen in the other photos) partially open. The vertex is well behind that. The vertex is closer to where to put the cowlick site than where you indicaste.

Mitch,

That's not where I placed those items. It's an early representation by me of where Riley placed the vertex, and where Riley and Griffith place the cowlick wound. I agree with you on their actual locations and have a graphic I have been working on.

Good photogrammetry work, there, Mitch. You choose to look at the photograph objectively, whereas Griffith just doubled down on the mistakes made by Riley.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 22, 2023, 02:10:05 AM
I take it that you are very new to the JFK case and that you have not bothered to read most of my replies?

What do I think all of this proves? Well, it's very simple: A bullet that entered slightly above and to the right of the EOP could not have been fired from the sixth-floor window. The only way that the WC could get the trajectory to work was to assume that JFK's head was titled over 50 degrees forward, a claim that nobody takes seriously anymore. I'll let lone-gunman theorist Dr. Robert Artwohl give his take on the trajectory problem posed by the EOP entry site:

---------------------------------------
Given the position of the President’s head in frame 312 of the Zapruder film (the moment just before the head burst), for a bullet to enter just above the EOP and exit the right frontotemporoparietal area, it would have had to travel in an upward direction, fired from inside the limousine’s trunk. Not even the most radical or imaginative of the conspirati has supposed a sniper to have been in this location. ("JFK's Assassination: Conspiracy, Forensic Science, and Common Sense," JAMA, March 24/31, 1993, 269:12, p. 1540)
---------------------------------------

You're lying again. The question is, Why did you reply at all? Why did you feel the need to respond after I said that we had both goofed? Why? Because you just couldn't let it go. In fact, let me quote what I said in my reply:

---------------------------------------
I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.
---------------------------------------

And I said nothing else on the subject in the rest of my reply and was prepared to drop the matter. But then you replied by claiming that there are four "major lobes" and that there are two more deep inside the brain. Why? Because you just had to be right (even though you were wrong). So, I replied that there are five major lobes and cited several expert sources to prove this. And in response you had the nerve to claim that I was the one who had to be right about every minor issue! 

You're lying again. It's not "BS" at all. It's a simple statement of fact that anyone can easily verify by reading your previous replies, starting with your Reply #152: In response to my factual point that the brain photos show the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe in virtually pristine condition, you claimed that I was wrong because the brain photos show damage to the "right cerebrum," and then you asked if I was wearing my "Mormon underwear too tight."

When I pointed out your blunder and noted that the cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, you answered with the comical claim that you said "right cerebrum" because you thought I was assuming that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as two areas in my replies.

And here you are still refusing to admit that you committed an inexcusable, amateurish blunder. Granted, admitting such a blunder would show that you have no business talking about the medical evidence, but at least you'd be facing your blunder truthfully.

Incidentally, when are you going to address the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? You're still ducking them.

You're lying again. You deliberately cherry-picked a statement from Speer's online book to give the false impression that Speer has some doubt about whether Humes reflected the scalp and saw the underlying wound in the skull, when in fact, as I proved, Speer has no doubt. But someone who had never read Speer's book would have no idea how dishonestly you quoted him.

Incidentally, when are you going to address the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? You're still ducking them.

You're lying again. I never expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley's location of the cowlick entry site. You did. Dr. Riley located it where everyone has located it. This is a non-issue that you've made up to avoid admitting another blunder.

When I quoted Dr. Riley on the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site, you said Riley was "ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis" and then made the comical claim that by citing Riley's research on the cowlick site I was putting the site "in the vertex area" (Reply #154). I jumped all over you for this astounding gaffe:

---------------------------------------
Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.
---------------------------------------

Your first attempt to explain your blunder was to double-down on it and repeat it, saying that you refused to go along with my "fantasy that the cowlick entry site occurred in the vertex area" (Reply #156), when in fact neither I nor Riley had even remotely implied that the cowlick site was "in the vertex area."

But then, apparently, you realized that your blunder was too obvious to deny and so you changed gears by pretending that my citing of Riley somehow indicated that I was not dealing with the spatial relationship of the cowlick site to the vertex, when I'd said nothing about the vertex and when you were the one who brought up the vertex, even though it has nothing to do with the cowlick site. You just made this up out of thin air as a smokescreen to try to avoid admitting another blunder. Your argument here is a continuation of this childish smokescreen.

So, now that we've exposed your ducking and dodging and dissembling, how do you explain the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site, as Riley discusses in his article and illustrates with his first graphic in the article? How do you explain that?

And how do you square the subcortical damage with the cowlick entry site, especially given the fact that there is no connecting path/cavitation between that damage and the cortical damage?

These are just two of the problems with the cowlick site. You have yet to address any of them. So let's just start with the two above-posed questions regarding (1) the intact cerebral cortex in the cowlick site's location and (2) the subcortical damage far below the cowlick site and the fact that there is no connecting path/cavitation between the cortical and subcortical damage.

What do I think all of this proves? Well, it's very simple: A bullet that entered slightly above and to the right of the EOP could not have been fired from the sixth-floor window. The only way that the WC could get the trajectory to work was to assume that JFK's head was titled over 50 degrees forward, a claim that nobody takes seriously anymore. I'll let lone-gunman theorist Dr. Robert Artwohl give his take on the trajectory problem posed by the EOP entry site:

So the point being made is that the bullet, having been fired from the sixth floor window, could not possibly strike JFK’s head at the EOP sight. Irregardless of what happens after the impact.  Or is the point being made that the bullet once it penetrates the skull is not capable of changing directions. Maybe the damage is so extensive nobody really knows and the experts are just making assumptions given the bullet fragmented upon impact.

It appears the only issue that is truly being made here is that the bullet must travel in a perfectly straight line for there to even be all this confusion. Why else would the tilt of JFK's head even be an issue. Maybe you should not be so overwhelmed by an expert’s opinion that you stop thinking for yourself.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 22, 2023, 02:48:23 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 22, 2023, 01:16:10 PM
You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area  where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the  everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.

I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)).

You might also want to read the exchanges that Dr. Riley had with lone-gunman theorists on this issue in the main JFK newsgroups, such as the alt.conspiracy.jfk Google Group. In one of his replies, Dr. Riley noted,

---------------------------------------
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet.
----------------------------------------

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). He also mentioned that a cowlick wound would have been visible in the skull after the pathologists reflected the scalp. Keep in mind that Stringer also informed the ARRB that he took pictures of the head after the scalp had been reflected, at the direction of the autopsy doctors (pp. 71, 93-95).

I should add that two of the color autopsy color prints are labeled "missile wound in posterior skull with scalp reflected" (ARRB Exhibit 13, Numbers 44 and 45).

Yet, Jerry Organ continues to peddle his silly fiction that the autopsy doctors never reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound and did not see the wound in the skull.

We should also remember what Dr. Finck said about the rear head entry wound in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, and note that this was after he had reviewed the autopsy materials for the Justice Department in late 1966. He said, "I don't endorse the 100 mm [relocation of the entrance wound]. . . . I saw the wound of entry in the back of the head . . . slightly above the EOP, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 mm above it."

One cannot be viewed as credible if one clings to the cowlick entry site without explaining the following issues (among other issues):

1. How a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, especially given the fact that there is no path/cavitation connecting the subcortical damage with the cortical damage. I have raised this issue repeatedly, and you guys just keep ducking it.

2. How two bullet fragments, supposedly from the cross section of an FMJ missile, could have ended up 1 cm below the cowlick site, especially if a bullet struck there at a downward angle. I defy you to cite a single case in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has behaved in this manner.

3. Why not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table of the skull or anywhere near the outer table.

4. Why not one of the skulls in the Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes, even though those skulls, being dried skulls, were more brittle than live skulls. (The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front.)

5. Why the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-rays does not align with the cowlick site and does not even come close to extending to the cowlick site. (Indeed, most of the high fragment trail is concentrated in the right frontal region, near the small notch in the right temple that several experts have identified on the skull x-rays. Gee, what a coincidence.)

There are other problems with the cowlick site, but these are the main ones that must be faced. Ducking them, pretending they don't exist, will not make them go away. You guys can keep posting bogus and/or irrelevant graphics and going off on endless diversionary evasions, but doing so won't make these problems disappear. It should tell you something that even a diehard WC apologist such as Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who is also your side's most qualified wound ballistics expert, has rejected the cowlick site.



 


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 22, 2023, 03:31:56 PM
I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).


All this wonderful posting and with exhibits too. Whatever is missing from this theory though. 

Oh, I know what it is. There is not a plausible explanation for the fracture in the windshield of the limousine. The fracture in the windshield of the limousine gives a clue as to the direction of travel of the bullet. The windshield fracture indicates the bullet had been traveling from the TSBD. The 6th floor to be exact. 

The bullet fragment had to have been angling up and away from the wound in the side of JFK’s head to create the windshield fracture. Guess what, the bullet had changed course from a downward angle to a horizontal if not upward angle after penetrating JFK’s skull. Is not that the conclusion basically reached by Humes? 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 22, 2023, 05:13:24 PM
In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Another thing that "all of this proves" is that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. You snipped that part of Dr. Hodges' analysis, but it is crucial. As I said, Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by several experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with OD measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays.

Further confirmation of this comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).

We also know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshields of the two left-trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, Agent Kinney's clothes, Jackie's dress, the rear hood, and on several surfaces inside the limo.

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show no more than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing, as even Bugliosi and Baden freely acknowledged (and indeed insisted).

Thus, it is not surprising that the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that he was certain that the brain photos in evidence are not the brain photos he took.

This is key because the only real objection to the EOP site is that it drastically contradicts the brain photos, because the brain photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and to the right-rear occipital lobe. The HSCA FPP members spent considerable time talking about the drastic conflict between the brain photos and the EOP entry site. Since they accepted the brain photos as authentic, they viewed them as irrefutable, definitive proof that no bullet entered at the EOP site. But once you realize that the brain photos are bogus and impossible, the only meaningful objection to the EOP site goes away.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 22, 2023, 05:25:03 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/62/33/zX6Nwsmz_o.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 22, 2023, 05:58:24 PM
I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).


All this wonderful posting and with exhibits too. Whatever is missing from this theory though. 

Oh, I know what it is. There is not a plausible explanation for the fracture in the windshield of the limousine. The fracture in the windshield of the limousine gives a clue as to the direction of travel of the bullet. The windshield fracture indicates the bullet had been traveling from the TSBD. The 6th floor to be exact. 

The bullet fragment had to have been angling up and away from the wound in the side of JFK’s head to create the windshield fracture. Guess what, the bullet had changed course from a downward angle to a horizontal if not upward angle after penetrating JFK’s skull. Is not that the conclusion basically reached by Humes?

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. No, Humes never made that claim. In fact, he said that the anatomical evidence did not allow him to say whether the bullet came from above but only from behind. The WC's diagram of the head-wound trajectory (CE 388) has the bullet traveling straight at an upward angle, since the EOP site was below the exit wound described in the autopsy report. How did the WC make this "work"? As I've mentioned several times, they assumed that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward, as we see in CE 388. That's the only way a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have created the entry and exit wounds described in the autopsy report.

When critics began to point out this impossible head-wound trajectory, Ramsey Clark convened the Clark Panel, and the Clark Panel came up with the bogus cowlick entry site 4 inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it. They did so to try to deal with the trajectory issue and also to try to deal with the newly appearing 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail, neither of which was mentioned in the autopsy report and in the doctors' 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials.

We need to keep in mind that in the autopsy pathologists' report on their 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials, they said the EOP entry site was visible in four of the autopsy photos. That is very interesting, because Hodges said he could see the EOP entry wound in some of the autopsy photos.

As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 23, 2023, 12:37:47 AM
I don't know where you're getting this stuff. No, Humes never made that claim. In fact, he said that the anatomical evidence did not allow him to say whether the bullet came from above but only from behind. The WC's diagram of the head-wound trajectory (CE 388) has the bullet traveling straight at an upward angle, since the EOP site was below the exit wound described in the autopsy report. How did the WC make this "work"? As I've mentioned several times, they assumed that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward, as we see in CE 388. That's the only way a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have created the entry and exit wounds described in the autopsy report.

When critics began to point out this impossible head-wound trajectory, Ramsey Clark convened the Clark Panel, and the Clark Panel came up with the bogus cowlick entry site 4 inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it. They did so to try to deal with the trajectory issue and also to try to deal with the newly appearing 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail, neither of which was mentioned in the autopsy report and in the doctors' 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials.

We need to keep in mind that in the autopsy pathologists' report on their 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials, they said the EOP entry site was visible in four of the autopsy photos. That is very interesting, because Hodges said he could see the EOP entry wound in some of the autopsy photos.

As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.

No that is not the only way. The bullet, at some point inside the skull, exploded and went in numerous directions. A trajectory, based on what amounts to a hand grenade effect, is an impossibility. The fact that fragments went forward explains it all that the shot was from the rear. The fact that the bullet was matched to the carcano on the 6th floor explains the location from which the shot was taken. The only other explanation would be to claim there was two assassins both armed with carcanos both in the TSBD.

------------------------------------------------

The cowlick site is nothing more than an attempt to explain what happened but failed because it could not explain the key issues. It is actually an ass backwards way to look at the problem. They must have assumed the bullet disintegrated upon impact with the side of JFK’s head and based the trajectory upon it and decided they needed a new entry point to make it all work. That obviously is not what happened as the window and chrome strip indicate.

-----------------------------

As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.

Now you get it. The damage to the window and chrome is key to understanding it. The bullet rising and disintegrating caused a defect in both the window and the chrome frame. The bullet upon entering the skull deviated from the original trajectory from the TSBD when it fragmented. The fragments did follow a new trajectory based on the position of JFK’s head, the blow out location and the window and chrome defects. The fragments indicate the bullet was rising when it blew out the side of his head for the damage to the chrome and window to occur.

 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 23, 2023, 12:39:43 AM
I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)).

You might also want to read the exchanges that Dr. Riley had with lone-gunman theorists on this issue in the main JFK newsgroups, such as the alt.conspiracy.jfk Google Group. In one of his replies, Dr. Riley noted,

---------------------------------------
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet.
----------------------------------------
That image shows that Riley put the "cowlick" location twice as far forward as the HSCA did, so Riley isn't a useful source. He made a foundational mistake when he assumed that the "AP" view was straight on, instead of being shot at an upward angle through the head, and this mistake [mis]informs the rest of his analyses. 

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). He also mentioned that a cowlick wound would have been visible in the skull after the pathologists reflected the scalp. Keep in mind that Stringer also informed the ARRB that he took pictures of the head after the scalp had been reflected, at the direction of the autopsy doctors (pp. 71, 93-95).

I should add that two of the color autopsy color prints are labeled "missile wound in posterior skull with scalp reflected" (ARRB Exhibit 13, Numbers 44 and 45).

Yet, Jerry Organ continues to peddle his silly fiction that the autopsy doctors never reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound and did not see the wound in the skull.
The operative phrase being "35 years later." How well did he remember it by then, I wonder? If you look at the color BOH photos, the "red spot" as you call it is at the center of the photo, and someone's holding a ruler right next to it. That would only happen if the "red spot" was the subject of the photo. That is, the "red spot" really is the entry wound in the scalp. 

As for any photo of the BOH wound involving reflection of the scalp, it's worth considering that F8 does indeed show the BOH wound, and the scalp being reflected.


We should also remember what Dr. Finck said about the rear head entry wound in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, and note that this was after he had reviewed the autopsy materials for the Justice Department in late 1966. He said, "I don't endorse the 100 mm [relocation of the entrance wound]. . . . I saw the wound of entry in the back of the head . . . slightly above the EOP, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 mm above it."
Finck didn't arrive at the Bethesda until after the skull had been pulled apart and the brain removed. He might not be the best source for this.

And here comes the Gish Gallop:

One cannot be viewed as credible if one clings to the cowlick entry site without explaining the following issues (among other issues):

1. How a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, especially given the fact that there is no path/cavitation connecting the subcortical damage with the cortical damage. I have raised this issue repeatedly, and you guys just keep ducking it.
The same way that paper will continue tearing far from where the force causing the tear is being applied. This is one of those argument that wounds superficially important, until you stop to consider how things actually work. Another way of saying it is, if you want to claim that the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a "cowlick" entry wound, then it's up to you to support your contention and not simply expect us to hallucinate it with you.

2. How two bullet fragments, supposedly from the cross section of an FMJ missile, could have ended up 1 cm below the cowlick site, especially if a bullet struck there at a downward angle. I defy you to cite a single case in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has behaved in this manner.
Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials? Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?
 
3. Why not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table of the skull or anywhere
near the outer table.
Would that be expected in all cases? I'll bet you have no idea.

4. Why not one of the skulls in the Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes, even though those skulls, being dried skulls, were more brittle than live skulls. (The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front.)
The lack of extensive fracturing would then probably be good evidence that the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. You didn't think this through very well, did you?

5. Why the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-rays does not align with the cowlick site and does not even come close to extending to the cowlick site. (Indeed, most of the high fragment trail is concentrated in the right frontal region, near the small notch in the right temple that several experts have identified on the skull x-rays. Gee, what a coincidence.)
If the high fragment trail isn't compatible with a "cowlick" entry, then it would be even less compatible with an EOP entry. You didn't think this through again.

There are other problems with the cowlick site, but these are the main ones that must be faced. Ducking them, pretending they don't exist, will not make them go away. You guys can keep posting bogus and/or irrelevant graphics and going off on endless diversionary evasions, but doing so won't make these problems disappear. It should tell you something that even a diehard WC apologist such as Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who is also your side's most qualified wound ballistics expert, has rejected the cowlick site.
The only problems I see here arise from your continuing reliance on begging the question and other faulty logic.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 23, 2023, 12:43:13 PM
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:

That image shows that Riley put the "cowlick" location twice as far forward as the HSCA did, so Riley isn't a useful source. He made a foundational mistake when he assumed that the "AP" view was straight on, instead of being shot at an upward angle through the head, and this mistake [mis]informs the rest of his analyses.

That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? You seem to be forgetting that Riley's drawing is a top-of-head view, while the HSCA drawing is a low-back-of-head view. When you consider this fact, Riley's dot for the cowlick site matches the HSCA location. This becomes even clearer when we look at HSCA Figure 29 (7 HSCA 125), which shows the cowlick site right around 1 inch above the lambda, about 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bEQPlDPz5LDq7b0E1k0iQdxSaa9BimA9/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bEQPlDPz5LDq7b0E1k0iQdxSaa9BimA9/view?usp=sharing).

Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it, when you factor in the fact that the drawings depict the wound from different perspectives (lower back-of-head vs. top-of-head), especially given HSCA Figure 29.

I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both when you consider the difference in perspective. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.

It takes a lot of nerve for an amateur to accuse a credentialed and respected neuroscientist of botching his drawing of a wound's location, especially when he is showing its location from a published exhibit from a different angle.

The operative phrase being "35 years later." How well did he remember it by then, I wonder?

Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.

If you look at the color BOH photos, the "red spot" as you call it is at the center of the photo, and someone's holding a ruler right next to it. That would only happen if the "red spot" was the subject of the photo. That is, the "red spot" really is the entry wound in the scalp.

Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos, as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.

As for any photo of the BOH wound involving reflection of the scalp, it's worth considering that F8 does indeed show the BOH wound, and the scalp being reflected.

So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?

Finck didn't arrive at the Bethesda until after the skull had been pulled apart and the brain removed. He might not be the best source for this.

Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.

It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.

And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.

And here comes the Gish Gallop:
The same way that paper will continue tearing far from where the force causing the tear is being applied. This is one of those argument that wounds superficially important, until you stop to consider how things actually work. Another way of saying it is, if you want to claim that the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a "cowlick" entry wound, then it's up to you to support your contention and not simply expect us to hallucinate it with you.

Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.

The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.

Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage. Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:

----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.

The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .

However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.

First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .

An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------

You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.

Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials?

You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.

We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.

Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:

---------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------

Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------

Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?

LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.

You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.

Would that be expected in all cases? I'll bet you have no idea.

This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC-Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.

It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve. 

The lack of extensive fracturing would then probably be good evidence that the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. You didn't think this through very well, did you?

HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.

I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.

If the high fragment trail isn't compatible with a "cowlick" entry, then it would be even less compatible with an EOP entry. You didn't think this through again.

This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.

No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?

The only problems I see here arise from your continuing reliance on begging the question and other faulty logic.

I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.

And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 23, 2023, 05:04:01 PM
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:

That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.

Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.

I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.

Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.

Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos, as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.

So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?

Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.

It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.

And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.

Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.

The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.

Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage. Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:

----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.

The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .

However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.

First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .

An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------

You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.

You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.

We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.

Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:

---------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------

Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------

LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.

You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.

This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.

It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve. 

HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.

I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.

This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.

No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?

I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.

And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."

HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.

The exiting bullet is not true. Good work though you answered the question as to when the bullet fragmented. You have stumbled on to the answer as to how the bullet’s trajectory changed to exit where it did. All the skull tests prove it was necessary for the brain to be present for an accurate test. Without it the bullet does not fracture the skull in the same way.

 

This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
 
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?

Interesting, the only way to explain the cranial factures is the bullet first began to fragment on entering the skull. You have answered your own question. It would be compatible with the bullet having fragmented for there even to have left the trail. 

Other than a lot of medical terms that give the appearance of knowledge, there does not seem to be a viable theory of any kind. A two carcano assassination who would have thunk it?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 24, 2023, 01:21:19 AM
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:

That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.

Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.

I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.

Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.

Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos, as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.

So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?

Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.

It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.

And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.

Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.

The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.

Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage. Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:

----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.

The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .

However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.

First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .

An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------

You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.

You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.

We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.

Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:

---------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------

Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------

LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.

You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.

This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.

It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve. 

HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.

I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.

This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.

No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?

I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.

And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."

Quote
Riley's graphic most....

What a nice post, you proved you can copy and paste, whoop-de-doo!

But at the end of the day you're a walking talking contradiction! You're on record that autopsy photos are faked but you don't seem to realize that "Riley's graphic" and subsequent analysis is based on the Authentic Autopsy photos and now with every fiber of your existence you're defending a top of head wound that NONE of your often quoted witnesses claimed to see? Can you please explain what you believe because it looks like you are just looking for a fight that you can't possibly win.

The authentic autopsy photos(which your latest prize Eyewitness seems to endorse) is clear, there was a single bullet entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head and NO back of head exit wound.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FR7XqJmv/JFKBOHlatest-700-1.gif)

Btw what evidence of any kind that is in the official record do you believe to be authentic??

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 24, 2023, 12:11:45 PM
A few follow-up points:

-- Richard Lipsey, an aide to General Philip Wehle (commander of the Washington, DC, military district), attended the autopsy and witnessed the reconstruction of the skull after the autopsy. During his 1/8/1978 HSCA interview, Lipsey "identified the entrance in the lower head as being just inside the hairline (Richard A. Lipsey Interview, 1/18/1978, HSCA transcript, p. 9). The HSCA interviewers asked Lipsey to draw a diagram of JFK's wounds. Lipsey put the rear head entry wound in the lower-middle part of the back of head, just above the hairline and very near the EOP (p. 10).

By 1967, after Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas highlighted the impossible trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP entry site to the alleged exit wound, the government officials who were trying to maintain the lone-gunman theory realized that they had to ditch the EOP site, that it was simply impossible for a bullet fired from the "Oswald window" to have entered at the EOP site and exited above the right ear. That's when they convened the Clark Panel and relocated the wound 4 inches higher on the skull.

-- When chief autopsy photographer John Stringer did a recorded interview with David Lifton in August 1972, he made many of the same key points that he made in his 1998 ARRB interview:

* He said the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound.

* He said he took pictures of the rear head entry wound from inside and outside the wound ("inner and outer table").

This confirms Dr. Finck's ARRB testimony that he had photos taken of the entry wound from both sides of the wound. For obvious reasons, those photos were excluded from the official collection of autopsy pictures.

* He said that the top of the head "in the back" was "blown off."

* He said that the top of the head in the front half of the head was "intact." Lifton made sure he was understanding what Stringer was saying on this point:

Quote
Lifton: The top front was intact?

Stringer: Right. (Transcript, p. 5)

Several other witnesses said the same thing, i.e., that they saw no damage to the head forward of the right ear. Of course, this sharply contradicts the existing autopsy photos of the head.

-- In his HSCA interview in August 1977, Dr. Robert Karnei, who assisted Dr. Humes at the start of the autopsy and who watched the autopsy from a close distance, said that he remembered Dr. Finck "arranging for photographs" (HSCA transcript of interview with Dr. Robert Karnei, August 29, 1977, p. 6) This lends further credence to Dr. Finck's assertion that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound.

-- Dr. Karnei said there was "extensive damage" to the brain (p. 6). He said the damage was so extensive that the brain would be considered "abnormal" and would normally have been taken over to the AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology).

Humm, well, the only damage to the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos is a single end-to-end laceration just right of the midline and small a piece of tissue hanging from the bottom of the cerebellum, with no more than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing from the entire brain.

-- In his 3/11/1977 interview with the HSCA FPP, Dr. John Ebersole, the chief radiologist during the autopsy, stated that "the back of the head was missing" and that after the autopsy began, "a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas" (Stenographic Transcript of Hearings Before the Medical Panel of the Select Committee on Assassinations, March 11, 1978, pp. 3, 6). This is yet another clear indication that the skull x-rays have been altered and that the autopsy photos of the back of head do not show the condition of the head during the autopsy.

Ebersole's account also supports Dr. Boswell's disclosure that part of the EOP entry site was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment.

-- Dr. Ebersole said that after Dr. Finck arrived, he was "actively involved" in the autopsy and that he was "very interested" in the beveling in the skull (pp. 23-24).

What a nice post, you proved you can copy and paste, whoop-de-doo!

But at the end of the day you're a walking talking contradiction! You're on record that autopsy photos are faked but you don't seem to realize that "Riley's graphic" and subsequent analysis is based on the Authentic Autopsy photos and now with every fiber of your existence you're defending a top of head wound that NONE of your often quoted witnesses claimed to see? Can you please explain what you believe because it looks like you are just looking for a fight that you can't possibly win.

THIS is your answer to the evidence I presented in my previous reply?! THIS?!

You are missing, or avoiding, the point that even if one assumes that the top-of-head autopsy photos are accurate/authentic, those photos destroy the cowlick entry site because they show intact cerebral cortex at the same location as the cowlick site, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.

I'm saying, fine, go ahead and assume those photos are accurate, as did Dr. Riley, but then you need to face the fact that those photos destroy the revised location for the entry wound, as Dr. Riley proved beyond any rational doubt. As mentioned, the cowlick site was only cooked up after government officials realized that they could no longer stick with the EOP entry site.

The authentic autopsy photos (which your latest prize Eyewitness seems to endorse) is clear, there was a single bullet entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head and NO back of head exit wound.

Uh, but those same "authentic autopsy photos" destroy the lone-gunman theory because they refute the revised location for the rear head entry wound. Do you not grasp this basic fact and problem?

As I said, sure, go ahead and insist that those photos are genuine/accurate, but then you need to face the reality that those photos categorically rule out the cowlick entry site and leave you with either no read head entry wound or with only the EOP entry wound, and the EOP entry wound destroys the notion that the rear head shot came from the sixth-floor window.

Btw what evidence of any kind that is in the official record do you believe to be authentic?? JohnM

You are decades behind the information curve. If the head was altered during illicit pre-autopsy surgery, as we now know occurred, the autopsy photos would not necessarily have to be "doctored" or "faked." They could simply be false, i.e., they could simply show the head after the wounds were altered, with no photographic alteration or doctoring required.

This is the argument that scholars such as Doug Horne have been making for years about the autopsy brain photos: They have not been altered or doctored, but they are not photos of JFK's brain but of someone else's brain. The skull x-rays alone prove that the brain photos are fraudulent and cannot be of JFK's brain.

You also need to consider the fact that we have known for nearly two decades that there were two sets of autopsy photos, and that the set now in evidence does not show the wounds that the other set showed.

And I notice that you ducked the other points I made:

-- The fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull, much less from its cross section.

-- The fact that the cowlick site cannot explain the subcortical damage.

-- The fact that Stringer confirmed that photos were taken of the EOP entry wound from inside and outside the wound, which was and is standard autopsy procedure.

-- The fact that Stringer told the ARRB that the rear head entry wound was near the hairline and not in the cowlick.

-- The fact that Stringer told the ARRB that the red spot in the back-of-head photos was not a wound but a spot of blood.

-- The fact that Stringer told the ARRB that the scalp was reflected.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 24, 2023, 07:25:52 PM
Summary for many old & current threads here.
There are no faked xrays or photos or footage. All are real. But some/many are missing, koz of the coverup re Hickey's accidental auto burst.
Fragments on the outside of jfk's head are from the Oswald shot-1 ricochet.
Oswald's shot-2 went throo jfk & Connally.
There were no other shots in Dealey, eg from in front, or from the fence etc.
And lots of what everyone is saying that aint in line with the above is interesting, but peripheral, or plain wrong.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 24, 2023, 09:00:02 PM
HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.

The exiting bullet is not true. Good work though you answered the question as to when the bullet fragmented. You have stumbled on to the answer as to how the bullet’s trajectory changed to exit where it did. All the skull tests prove it was necessary for the brain to be present for an accurate test. Without it the bullet does not fracture the skull in the same way.

This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
 
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?

Interesting, the only way to explain the cranial factures is the bullet first began to fragment on entering the skull. You have answered your own question. It would be compatible with the bullet having fragmented for there even to have left the trail. 

Other than a lot of medical terms that give the appearance of knowledge, there does not seem to be a viable theory of any kind. A two carcano assassination who would have thunk it?

This is a bunch of evasive, clueless drivel. You have no clue what you're talking about and clearly don't seem to grasp the significance of the evidence and the problems with the cowlick site and with the back-of-head fragments. Do you just not care that your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has rejected the cowlick site and admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull?

There may not seem to be a "viable theory of any kind" to you, but that's because you simply brush aside every piece of evidence that you can't explain (and/or don't understand) and duck every problem with your own absurd theory of the shooting. The only place where there does not appear to be a "viable theory of any kind" is in Lone-Gunman Theory La La Land.

My theory of the shooting suffers from none of the unsolvable problems that yours does. My theory explains the back-of-head fragments in a rational, precedented way, unlike yours. My theory explains the problem of the fractures, unlike yours. My theory explains the cortical and subcortical damage, unlike yours. My theory explains the impossible virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos, unlike yours. My theory explains the massive eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, unlike yours. My theory explains the brazen contradiction between the autopsy brain photos and the autopsy skull x-rays (which show over half of the right brain missing), unlike yours. Etc., etc., etc.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 26, 2023, 09:25:10 PM
This is a bunch of evasive, clueless drivel. You have no clue what you're talking about and clearly don't seem to grasp the significance of the evidence and the problems with the cowlick site and with the back-of-head fragments. Do you just not care that your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has rejected the cowlick site and admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull?

There may not seem to be a "viable theory of any kind" to you, but that's because you simply brush aside every piece of evidence that you can't explain (and/or don't understand) and duck every problem with your own absurd theory of the shooting. The only place where there does not appear to be a "viable theory of any kind" is in Lone-Gunman Theory La La Land.

My theory of the shooting suffers from none of the unsolvable problems that yours does. My theory explains the back-of-head fragments in a rational, precedented way, unlike yours. My theory explains the problem of the fractures, unlike yours. My theory explains the cortical and subcortical damage, unlike yours. My theory explains the impossible virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos, unlike yours. My theory explains the massive eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, unlike yours. My theory explains the brazen contradiction between the autopsy brain photos and the autopsy skull x-rays (which show over half of the right brain missing), unlike yours. Etc., etc., etc.
Michael i appreciate your commitment to the jfk saga. But, i have never corrected u on one little point that i have seen u make umpteen times on this forum. So i will correct it now.

Donahue did not say that the existence of many small fragments inside the head near the front of the head support a shot-from-the-front (u love the shot-from-the-front theory).

No, Donahue said that the small fragments near the front support a shot-from-the-back. See top of p228 paperback MORTAL ERROR. See bottom of p247 paperback.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 27, 2023, 12:12:07 PM

First, a few follow-up points:

-- F-32 (Figure 29 in 7 HSCA 125) removes any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley’s placement of the cowlick site in his “HSCA Entrance” graphic in “What Struck John.” One can perhaps understand how someone could mistakenly think that Riley placed the site higher than it is placed in F-307, but only if they did not stop to consider the fact that F-307 shows the site from a lower-rear view, whereas Riley shows it from a top-of-head view. F-32, however, showing a largely right profile view, makes it clear that the HSCA put the site exactly where Riley put it (and vice-versa), right around 1 inch above the lambda, at least 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture. 

F-32 Loc of Cowlick Entry Site
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing)

F-32 and Riley Graphic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing)

This is a crucial point because, as Riley notes, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site, proving that the site cannot be a bullet wound. Thus, on this basis alone, the cowlick entry site is both invalid and impossible.

-- Dr. Finck specified in his 1/25/1965 memo to General Blumberg on the autopsy that he saw the rear head entry wound in the scalp and in the underlying occipital bone:

--------------------------------------------
I examined the wounds. 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, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (p. 1)
--------------------------------------------

We see from the date of this memo that he wrote this account barely 13 months after the autopsy. Thus, his placement of the entry wound in the occipital bone is strong evidence for the EOP site, since it boggles the mind to think that a certified forensic pathologist would have located in the occiput a wound that would have been clearly above the lambdoid suture and above the lambda and thus obviously in the parietal bone.

-- The HSCA’s trajectory expert, NASA’s Dr. Tom Canning, in order to get the sixth-floor-to-cowlick-site trajectory to “work,” found it necessary to place JFK a good 2 feet farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him (HSCA exhibit F-138). Indeed, Canning put JFK nearly to the middle of the seat. This is what Canning had to do to maintain the fiction that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit the cowlick site and then exited above the right ear. 

F-138 Canning Head Shot Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing)

This is especially odd because in his SBT diagram (F-140), Canning put JFK at the far-right end of the seat, right next to the right door of the limo, exactly where photos and footage show him (but Canning had to put Connally substantially farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him to get the SBT trajectory to “work”).

F-140 Canning SBT Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing)

Here are more problems that the medical and trajectory evidence poses for any lone-gunman scenario regarding the cowlick entry site and/or the EOP entry site:

-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was 6 x 15 mm. It says the scalp wound was 6 x 15 mm and that there was a “corresponding wound” in the underlying skull, i.e., that the hole in the skull was the same size as the hole in the scalp. Unless one wants to assume that the autopsy doctors severely mismeasured the wound, this poses a serious problem for those who claim that a 6.5 mm bullet made this wound. Why? Because entry wounds in skulls are always, always larger than the diameter of the penetrating bullet. Always.

The WC explained the 6 mm width by conjuring up the fiction that “the elastic recoil of the skull shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.” Uh, no, it does not. Scalp tissue will slightly recoil after a bullet penetrates it, but skull bone will do no such thing. At least the WC did not make the absurd argument that the autopsy doctors mismeasured the wound.

-- As Howard Donahue noted, the HSCA’s proposed exit point made no sense when considered in light of the skull x-rays. The x-rays show that the skull shattered for 5 inches above and behind the exit point, yet there is no defect below or in front of it! If the bullet smashed skull for 4-5 inches above and behind its exit point, it surely would have created at least a small portal of damage below and in front of it.

-- Moreover, as several medical experts have noted, how can fragments be embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those 5 inches of missing skull bone? What is holding those fragments in place if the skull was blasted out at that location? If the skull x-rays are to be believed, there would have been no bone there in which fragments could have been embedded, yet there they are. Something is seriously wrong here.

-- The Clark Panel did not see the small “semi-circular” exit point that the HSCA FPP claimed to identify in the right temple in the skull x-rays. The Clark Panel identified “relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed . . . in the right cerebral hemisphere,” and noted a trail of tiny fragments 1.8 inches long that allegedly lined up with the cowlick site but that dissipated before reaching a point in the frontal region.

-- The autopsy report says that fractures radiated from the EOP entry wound:

--------------------------------------------
Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. (p. 4)
--------------------------------------------

However, the WC’s own wound ballistics tests failed to produce a single entry wound in skull bone with extensive cracking emanating from it, even though the tests were done with dried human skulls. Dried skulls are more brittle than live skulls, yet no extensive fracturing originated from any of the entry wounds in the WC’s tests. 

Does this invalidate the EOP site? No, because the cracking could have been caused by an exiting bullet after a bullet entered the EOP site. This would explain why part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a large late-arriving skull fragment. The first head shot hit the skull at the EOP site. The second head shot hit the skull in the right temple and exited the occiput, causing extensive fracturing and creating the large defect in the lower half of the occiput that dozens of witnesses in three different locations described.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Paul McBrearty on December 27, 2023, 04:24:40 PM

Here are more problems that the medical and trajectory evidence poses for any lone-gunman scenario regarding the cowlick entry site and/or the EOP entry site:

-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was 6 x 15 mm. It says the scalp wound was 6 x 15 mm and that there was a “corresponding wound” in the underlying skull, i.e., that the hole in the skull was the same size as the hole in the scalp. Unless one wants to assume that the autopsy doctors severely mismeasured the wound, this poses a serious problem for those who claim that a 6.5 mm bullet made this wound. Why? Because entry wounds in skulls are always, always larger than the diameter of the penetrating bullet. Always.

The WC explained the 6 mm width by conjuring up the fiction that “the elastic recoil of the skull shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.” Uh, no, it does not. Scalp tissue will slightly recoil after a bullet penetrates it, but skull bone will do no such thing. At least the WC did not make the absurd argument that the autopsy doctors mismeasured the wound.



Autopsy Report and Supplemental Report, p. 4:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

"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."


Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James Humes, pp. 359, 360, & 361:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Humes.pdf

"Mr. McCLOY. Perhaps this was something that Colonel Finck could testify to exactly, but, he would be quite competent. Is there anything to indicate that this was, might have been a larger than a 6.5 or smaller than a 6.5?
Commander HUMES. 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.
Mr. McCLOY. Seven would be the absolute upper limit?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir;
and, of course, just a little tilt could make it a little larger, you see."


"Mr. SPECTER. Now, on one detail on your report, Dr. Humes, on page 4, on the third line down, you note that there is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. which on the smaller size is, of course, less than 6.5 mm.?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What would be the explanation for that variation?
Commander HUMES. 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."



No one has suggested that the "corresponding wound through the skull" had dimensions identical to the wound in the scalp.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 28, 2023, 03:53:40 AM
First, a few follow-up points:

-- F-32 (Figure 29 in 7 HSCA 125) removes any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley’s placement of the cowlick site in his “HSCA Entrance” graphic in “What Struck John.” One can perhaps understand how someone could mistakenly think that Riley placed the site higher than it is placed in F-307, but only if they did not stop to consider the fact that F-307 shows the site from a lower-rear view, whereas Riley shows it from a top-of-head view. F-32, however, showing a largely right profile view, makes it clear that the HSCA put the site exactly where Riley put it (and vice-versa), right around 1 inch above the lambda, at least 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture. 

F-32 Loc of Cowlick Entry Site
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing)

F-32 and Riley Graphic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing)

This is a crucial point because, as Riley notes, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site, proving that the site cannot be a bullet wound. Thus, on this basis alone, the cowlick entry site is both invalid and impossible.

-- Dr. Finck specified in his 1/25/1965 memo to General Blumberg on the autopsy that he saw the rear head entry wound in the scalp and in the underlying occipital bone:

--------------------------------------------
I examined the wounds. 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, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (p. 1)
--------------------------------------------

We see from the date of this memo that he wrote this account barely 13 months after the autopsy. Thus, his placement of the entry wound in the occipital bone is strong evidence for the EOP site, since it boggles the mind to think that a certified forensic pathologist would have located in the occiput a wound that would have been clearly above the lambdoid suture and above the lambda and thus obviously in the parietal bone.

-- The HSCA’s trajectory expert, NASA’s Dr. Tom Canning, in order to get the sixth-floor-to-cowlick-site trajectory to “work,” found it necessary to place JFK a good 2 feet farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him (HSCA exhibit F-138). Indeed, Canning put JFK nearly to the middle of the seat. This is what Canning had to do to maintain the fiction that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit the cowlick site and then exited above the right ear. 

F-138 Canning Head Shot Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing)

This is especially odd because in his SBT diagram (F-140), Canning put JFK at the far-right end of the seat, right next to the right door of the limo, exactly where photos and footage show him (but Canning had to put Connally substantially farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him to get the SBT trajectory to “work”).

F-140 Canning SBT Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing)

Here are more problems that the medical and trajectory evidence poses for any lone-gunman scenario regarding the cowlick entry site and/or the EOP entry site:

-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was 6 x 15 mm. It says the scalp wound was 6 x 15 mm and that there was a “corresponding wound” in the underlying skull, i.e., that the hole in the skull was the same size as the hole in the scalp. Unless one wants to assume that the autopsy doctors severely mismeasured the wound, this poses a serious problem for those who claim that a 6.5 mm bullet made this wound. Why? Because entry wounds in skulls are always, always larger than the diameter of the penetrating bullet. Always.

The WC explained the 6 mm width by conjuring up the fiction that “the elastic recoil of the skull shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.” Uh, no, it does not. Scalp tissue will slightly recoil after a bullet penetrates it, but skull bone will do no such thing. At least the WC did not make the absurd argument that the autopsy doctors mismeasured the wound.

-- As Howard Donahue noted, the HSCA’s proposed exit point made no sense when considered in light of the skull x-rays. The x-rays show that the skull shattered for 5 inches above and behind the exit point, yet there is no defect below or in front of it! If the bullet smashed skull for 4-5 inches above and behind its exit point, it surely would have created at least a small portal of damage below and in front of it.

-- Moreover, as several medical experts have noted, how can fragments be embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those 5 inches of missing skull bone? What is holding those fragments in place if the skull was blasted out at that location? If the skull x-rays are to be believed, there would have been no bone there in which fragments could have been embedded, yet there they are. Something is seriously wrong here.

-- The Clark Panel did not see the small “semi-circular” exit point that the HSCA FPP claimed to identify in the right temple in the skull x-rays. The Clark Panel identified “relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed . . . in the right cerebral hemisphere,” and noted a trail of tiny fragments 1.8 inches long that allegedly lined up with the cowlick site but that dissipated before reaching a point in the frontal region.

-- The autopsy report says that fractures radiated from the EOP entry wound:

--------------------------------------------
Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. (p. 4)
--------------------------------------------

However, the WC’s own wound ballistics tests failed to produce a single entry wound in skull bone with extensive cracking emanating from it, even though the tests were done with dried human skulls. Dried skulls are more brittle than live skulls, yet no extensive fracturing originated from any of the entry wounds in the WC’s tests. 

Does this invalidate the EOP site? No, because the cracking could have been caused by an exiting bullet after a bullet entered the EOP site. This would explain why part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a large late-arriving skull fragment. The first head shot hit the skull at the EOP site. The second head shot hit the skull in the right temple and exited the occiput, causing extensive fracturing and creating the large defect in the lower half of the occiput that dozens of witnesses in three different locations described.

Wow. This is so far removed from reality that it staggers the imagination and absolutely flies in the face of any common sense. All the experts who viewed this evidence, Canning, Sturdivan, and even Wecht and you are a believer of someone like Dr. Riley. Even Cyril Wecht does not buy any of this nonsense. Is that why you don’t quote him? 

Not a shred of evidence anywhere in the theory let alone a basis for shooters front and rear of JFK, two shooters both armed with carcanos. Unbelievable. My belief is, in all the medical jargon spouted here, that you do not even know where the EOP is let alone measuring from it.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 28, 2023, 11:17:25 AM
Autopsy Report and Supplemental Report, p. 4:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

"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."

Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James Humes, pp. 359, 360, & 361:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Humes.pdf

"Mr. McCLOY. Perhaps this was something that Colonel Finck could testify to exactly, but, he would be quite competent. Is there anything to indicate that this was, might have been a larger than a 6.5 or smaller than a 6.5?

Commander HUMES. 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.

Mr. McCLOY. Seven would be the absolute upper limit?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir;
and, of course, just a little tilt could make it a little larger, you see."

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, on one detail on your report, Dr. Humes, on page 4, on the third line down, you note that there is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. which on the smaller size is, of course, less than 6.5 mm.?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What would be the explanation for that variation?

Commander HUMES. 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."

No one has suggested that the "corresponding wound through the skull" had dimensions identical to the wound in the scalp.

Oh, please. Not this nonsense again. If the skull wound had been larger than the scalp wound, Humes surely would have noted this crucial fact in the autopsy report, since this would have been vital forensic information. Indeed, if the skull wound had been 7 x 15 mm instead of 6 x 15 mm, Humes would have given the skull wound's size as the size of the wound, since that would have been the wound's actual size. But, according to you, Humes inexplicably chose the scalp wound's size and ignored the skull wound's size.

Humes admitted that he was aware that scalp wounds can be smaller than the caliber of the bullet, that scalp wounds can shrink because of the skin's elastic recoil, which is all the more reason that he would not have used the scalp wound's size as the size of the wound. The actual size of the wound would have been the size of the skull wound, not the size of the scalp wound. Moreover, if the skull wound had been larger than the scalp wound, Humes would have used the size of the skull wound because it would have been a more accurate indicator of the caliber of the bullet.

Furthermore, when Finck described the rear head entry wound in his report to General Blumberg, he said nothing about the skull wound being larger than the scalp wound, but said the entry wound was 6 x 15 mm, period. He described the skull wound in some detail, noting the cratering on its interior side and the lack of cratering on its exterior side. As a forensic pathologist, Finck surely would have noted that the skull wound was larger than the scalp wound, and he positively would not have specified the size of the wound based only on its size in the scalp--he would have used the skull wound's size as the size of the wound.
 
By the time Humes testified, the WC realized they had a big problem with the size of the rear head entry wound. Notice that nobody asked Humes, "Hey, if the skull wound was larger than the scalp wound, and given that you knew that scalp wounds can shrink, why did you not give the wound's actual size, which was the size of the skull wound? Since you measured the skull wound, if you found that the skull wound was larger than the scalp wound, why did you not record this vital information in the autopsy report, especially since the skull wound's size was the actual size of the wound?"

And did you notice that in his WC testimony Humes said the maximum size, the "absolute upper limit," of the wound was 7 mm. Yet, the smallest skull wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was 8 mm, i.e., 14.25% larger than the "absolute upper limit" of the size of the EOP entry wound that Humes gave while attempting to help the WC explain the serious problem posed by the autopsy report's description of the wound as 6 x 15 mm.

I see that Jerry Organ has posted another one of his comical, blundering, and dishonest graphics in Reply #176. In his silly graphic, Organ ignores HSCA exhibits F-32 and F-307 and claims that Riley put the cowlick site 2 inches above the lambda and nearly 3 inches above the lamdoid suture! Seriously, is this guy a closet conspiracy theorist who's trying to embarrass the lone-gunman position? Anyone with two working eyes can see that Riley put the cowlick site 1 inch above the lambda, not 2 inches.

F-32 and Riley Graphic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing)


Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 28, 2023, 10:46:27 PM
I see that Jerry Organ has posted another one of his comical, blundering, and dishonest graphics in Reply #176. In his silly graphic, Organ ignores HSCA exhibits F-32 and F-307 and claims that Riley put the cowlick site 2 inches above the lambda and nearly 3 inches above the lamdoid suture!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)

The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.

Quote
Seriously, is this guy a closet conspiracy theorist who's trying to embarrass the lone-gunman position? Anyone with two working eyes can see that Riley put the cowlick site 1 inch above the lambda, not 2 inches.

Andrew Mason's looking for a photogrammetry specialist to model his Sure-Fire Theory. You two should get together.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 29, 2023, 12:06:04 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)

The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.

Nice work Jerry, as we know Griffith's perception of perspective is amateurish at best, for instance his laughable analysis of the Zapruder film is downright hilarious and even when his childish conclusions are proven beyond all doubt to be wrong, the man who never met a conspiracy that he didn't like, doubles down with the stupidity!

JohnM

 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 29, 2023, 10:33:03 AM

The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.

No, the problem is that you are ignoring clear reference points, ignoring HSCA exhibit F-32, and ignoring where Riley and the HSCA placed the cowlick site in relation to those points (lambda and lambdoid suture). Your silly graphic has the cowlick site so far forward that it's nearly directly above the right ear! Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and see that he put the site well behind the right ear. They can also see that he put the site only 1 inch above the lambda, whereas you have the "CT Cowlick Wound Area" 2 inches above the lambda.

You see, when you guys are confronted with irrefutable photographic evidence that destroys the lone-gunman theory, you just can't face it. Instead, you see the Emperor's New Clothes and post ridiculous graphics that a child can see are bogus.

And, as I've said before, it is mighty bold of you to get on a public forum and claim that a respected and published neuroscientist couldn't tell the difference between 2 inches above the lambda and 1 inch above the lambda, and couldn't distinguish between a point on the skull that was clearly well behind the right ear and a point that was nearly directly above it. Wow. I mean for you, who thought the cerebellum was part of "the right cerebrum," to even be challenging Dr. Riley on anything is amusing.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 29, 2023, 09:01:37 PM
No, the problem is that you are ignoring clear reference points, ignoring HSCA exhibit F-32, and ignoring where Riley and the HSCA placed the cowlick site in relation to those points (lambda and lambdoid suture). Your silly graphic has the cowlick site so far forward that it's nearly directly above the right ear! Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and see that he put the site well behind the right ear. They can also see that he put the site only 1 inch above the lambda, whereas you have the "CT Cowlick Wound Area" 2 inches above the lambda.

You see, when you guys are confronted with irrefutable photographic evidence that destroys the lone-gunman theory, you just can't face it. Instead, you see the Emperor's New Clothes and post ridiculous graphics that a child can see are bogus.

And, as I've said before, it is mighty bold of you to get on a public forum and claim that a respected and published neuroscientist couldn't tell the difference between 2 inches above the lambda and 1 inch above the lambda, and couldn't distinguish between a point on the skull that was clearly well behind the right ear and a point that was nearly directly above it. Wow. I mean for you, who thought the cerebellum was part of "the right cerebrum," to even be challenging Dr. Riley on anything is amusing.

Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXWmJLtz/HSCA-medical-Panel.png)

Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv8HVVDt/Riley-worked-from-authentic-autopsy-photos.png)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48771#relPageId=3

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 29, 2023, 09:36:26 PM
Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXWmJLtz/HSCA-medical-Panel.png)

Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv8HVVDt/Riley-worked-from-authentic-autopsy-photos.png)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48771#relPageId=3

JohnM
Apparently the conspirators were/are able to fool the top forensic and photographic experts in the nation, people with hundreds of years of experience and who studied the original material, but some guy sitting behind a computer examining 12th generation photos is able to see through their ruse.

I'm not convinced.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 29, 2023, 10:09:08 PM
Apparently the conspirators were/are able to fool the top forensic and photographic experts in the nation, people with hundreds of years of experience and who studied the original material, but some guy sitting behind a computer examining 12th generation photos is able to see through their ruse.

I'm not convinced.

Griffith has a long history of scouring the internet and finding evidence from an "expert" who may well be proficient in an unrelated profession, but are typically analyzing material that far exceeds their limited experience.

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 29, 2023, 11:42:51 PM
Nice work Jerry, as we know Griffith's perception of perspective is amateurish at best, for instance his laughable analysis of the Zapruder film is downright hilarious and even when his childish conclusions are proven beyond all doubt to be wrong, the man who never met a conspiracy that he didn't like, doubles down with the stupidity!

JohnM

Thank you for the compliment, JohnM. I believe some people struggle with 3D visualization. Remember when Cartoon Ernie was here, and Craig and you would point out some error he made because he didn't allow for perspective? Ernie thought perspective was an LN trick.

Griffith can't see the problem with applying a 2D orthographic image (representing a level horizontal plane) to a photograph taken obliquely. Add to that the nearness of the camera to the object that induced a substantial amount of perspective.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 30, 2023, 12:28:47 AM
Thank you for the compliment, JohnM. I believe some people struggle with 3D visualization. Remember when Cartoon Ernie was here, and Craig and you would point out some error he made because he didn't allow for perspective? Ernie thought perspective was an LN trick.

Griffith can't see the problem with applying a 2D orthographic image (representing a level horizontal plane) to a photograph taken obliquely. Add to that the nearness of the camera to the object that induced a substantial amount of perspective.

Yeah, cartoon Ernie was quite the character but had bugger all knowledge of how perspective alters the proportions of his 3D models, for example when debating the positions of the motorcycles in relation to Kennedy's Limo, he modelled Altgens 6 from a position that was way to close and subsequently this altered the relevant distances but when I supplied a more realistic Sketchup image based on Altgens actual location he refused to acknowledge his mistake, so I politely asked him to recalculate his 3D image with the correct location of Altgens and was only met with the chirping of crickets.

And as for Craig Lamson, he was a true photographic expert who taught me a lot about image analysis, and I remember the time when he completely destroyed Weidmann's claim to be the Manager of Managers. Hilarious! 

Craig Lamson collated Martin Weidmann's claims.

LAMSON: "Wow, what a tangled mess. You own the company but need to ALLOW yourself time off and will take it even if you lose a client, but you don't really do much work because its the employees doing it all, but you like being at work, even though you don't do anything and are not needed and are just taking up space, but you don't have a real life so you just clutter up the office doing nothing. wow"


 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 30, 2023, 11:35:04 AM
Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!

Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory? JohnM

LOL! WC apologists have flexed and morphed and twisted all over the place over the years to reinforce the farcical lone-gunman theory--a theory that about 2/3 of the Western world rejects, I might reiterate.

Do I need to remind you that for years your side insisted that a bullet--from the sixth-floor window--struck slightly above the EOP? Do I need to remind you that for years your side said that the alleged magic bullet struck above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck? Do I need to remind you that the same HSCA medical panel that you just finished praising determined that the alleged magic bullet struck below the throat wound and that the back wound shows that the bullet entered at a slightly upward angle? Do I need to remind you that your side's leading wound ballistics expert repudiated the cowlick entry site in 2005, and that many WC apologists have followed his lead? Do I need to remind you that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190, but that most WC apologists reject this observable fact because it destroys the current version of the single-bullet theory, even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?

Let's consider some of the experts who have said the HSCA medical panel was wrong about the rear head entry wound's location and wrong about the wound's alleged presence on the autopsy skull x-rays:

-- Dr. Doug Ubelaker (ARRB forensic anthropologist)
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick (ARRB forensic radiologist)
-- Dr. Pierre Finck (forensic pathologist, chief of wound ballistics at the AFIP, and one of the three JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. James Humes (chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell (chief of pathology at the National Naval Medical School and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD, a medical doctor who has conducted assassination-related wound ballistics tests)
-- Dr. David Mantik (PhD in physics and MD in radiation oncology with a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a former member of the HSCA medical panel--Wecht has repudiated the cowlick entry site)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (MD in neuroscience, a former professor at the Yale School of Medicine, a former director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California-San Diego)
-- Dr. Fred Hodges (a neurologic radiologist, chief of neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, a former president of the American Society of Neuroradiology, and a former member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel)

This is a partial list.

Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting. He proved that the autopsy photos destroy the cowlick entry site, that the cowlick entry site cannot explain the subcortical damage, and that the clearly separate and unconnected wound paths seen in the autopsy materials absolutely prove that two bullets hit JFK in the head.

I have already explained my view of the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. Let me do so again. Pay attention this time: The skull x-rays are indeed x-rays of JFK's skull, but we know from hard scientific evidence that they have been altered--and, as we have seen, you guys have no answer for this evidence.

The autopsy photos now in evidence are only part of the autopsy photos that were taken. We have known for years now that there was a second set of autopsy photos. The ARRB interviewed the Navy photo technician who processed the second set of autopsy photos, and several people who saw those photos said they showed a large wound in the back of the head.

The top-of-head autopsy photos destroy the cowlick site, since they show intact cerebral cortex at the site' location, proving that no bullet entered at the site. I am unsure whether the top-of-head photos have been doctored, as some photographic experts have argued, or whether they were taken after the illicit pre-autopsy surgery to the head and thus represent the altered condition of the top of the head and not the head's condition as it existed in Dallas (which would explain why the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with gauze saw no large wound above the right ear).

But, hey, if you insist that the top-of-head photos are authentic and accurate, then you must face the fact that those photos destroy the cowlick entry site. So far, your and your fellow WC apologists' only answer has been the demonstrably false claim that Riley put the cowlick site twice as far above from the lambda as the HSCA FPP did. HSCA exhibit F-32 alone destroys this bogus, dishonest claim.

Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.

Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.






Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on December 30, 2023, 04:25:25 PM
LOL! WC apologists have flexed and morphed and twisted all over the place over the years to reinforce the farcical lone-gunman theory--a theory that about 2/3 of the Western world rejects, I might reiterate.

Do I need to remind you that for years your side insisted that a bullet--from the sixth-floor window--struck slightly above the EOP? Do I need to remind you that for years your side said that the alleged magic bullet struck above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck? Do I need to remind you that the same HSCA medical panel that you just finished praising determined that the alleged magic bullet struck below the throat wound and that the back wound shows that the bullet entered at a slightly upward angle? Do I need to remind you that your side's leading wound ballistics expert repudiated the cowlick entry site in 2005, and that many WC apologists have followed his lead? Do I need to remind you that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190, but that most WC apologists reject this observable fact because it destroys the current version of the single-bullet theory, even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?

Let's consider some of the experts who have said the HSCA medical panel was wrong about the rear head entry wound's location and wrong about the wound's alleged presence on the autopsy skull x-rays:

-- Dr. Doug Ubelaker (ARRB forensic anthropologist)
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick (ARRB forensic radiologist)
-- Dr. Pierre Finck (forensic pathologist, chief of wound ballistics at the AFIP, and one of the three JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. James Humes (chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell (chief of pathology at the National Naval Medical School and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD, a medical doctor who has conducted assassination-related wound ballistics tests)
-- Dr. David Mantik (PhD in physics and MD in radiation oncology with a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a former member of the HSCA medical panel--Wecht has repudiated the cowlick entry site)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (MD in neuroscience, a former professor at the Yale School of Medicine, a former director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California-San Diego)
-- Dr. Fred Hodges (a neurologic radiologist, chief of neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, a former president of the American Society of Neuroradiology, and a former member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel)

This is a partial list.

Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting. He proved that the autopsy photos destroy the cowlick entry site, that the cowlick entry site cannot explain the subcortical damage, and that the clearly separate and unconnected wound paths seen in the autopsy materials absolutely prove that two bullets hit JFK in the head.

I have already explained my view of the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. Let me do so again. Pay attention this time: The skull x-rays are indeed x-rays of JFK's skull, but we know from hard scientific evidence that they have been altered--and, as we have seen, you guys have no answer for this evidence.

The autopsy photos now in evidence are only part of the autopsy photos that were taken. We have known for years now that there was a second set of autopsy photos. The ARRB interviewed the Navy photo technician who processed the second set of autopsy photos, and several people who saw those photos said they showed a large wound in the back of the head.

The top-of-head autopsy photos destroy the cowlick site, since they show intact cerebral cortex at the site' location, proving that no bullet entered at the site. I am unsure whether the top-of-head photos have been doctored, as some photographic experts have argued, or whether they were taken after the illicit pre-autopsy surgery to the head and thus represent the altered condition of the top of the head and not the head's condition as it existed in Dallas (which would explain why the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with gauze saw no large wound above the right ear).

But, hey, if you insist that the top-of-head photos are authentic and accurate, then you must face the fact that those photos destroy the cowlick entry site. So far, your and your fellow WC apologists' only answer has been the demonstrably false claim that Riley put the cowlick site twice as far above from the lambda as the HSCA FPP did. HSCA exhibit F-32 alone destroys this bogus, dishonest claim.

Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.

Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.



Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
 
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.


This might be more of a case of you just don't want to accept reality.
 
Sturdivan explains the fragments and the deforming bullet leaving a trail of fragments along its path through the brain. You are dismissing Sturdivan’s explanation?

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. Well, this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced X-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a softnosed or hollow point bullet that was fully jacketed and, therefore, not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet because in either of those cases, the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So, this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes. Incidentally, those fragments that are left by the bullet are also very small and do not move very far from their initial, from the place where they departed the bullet. Consequently, they tend to be clustered very closely around the track of the bullet.

 ------------------------------------------------
There were traces of copper left by the jacketed copper bullet on JFK’s suit coat and shirt, but you claim the same is not possible for the back of the head wound. That is really your belief?

The FBI discovered traces of copper on both JFK’s coat and shirt where the bullet entered his back.

FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 14 (maryferrell.org)     page 85
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 30, 2023, 11:01:05 PM
even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?

Here we go again, you're not only on record in this Forum saying the Zapruder Film is fake, you've got web pages about this "fakery" and even further than that, you've forever documented your opinion about the Zapruder Film in your book, yet you still use the Zapruder Film as proof of your latest "observation"?
This, Mr. Griffith is why you can't be taken seriously about any of your theories.

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on December 31, 2023, 12:03:25 AM
Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting.

The only devastation that can be seen here, is how to make heads or tails out of your latest conspiracy theory??

I, along with most LNer researchers since day one, accept the authenticated evidence as being, well, authentic. Whereas you just chop and change whichever way the wind blows, which significantly impacts the last specks of your rapidly depleting credibility.

Remember when,

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/98/6f/b1/986fb1591960ae4ae08f210c5d4b977b.jpg)
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 for the record, these stereoscopic morphed images are the cornerstone images that are the basis of the latest Griffith endorsed analysis.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FR7XqJmv/JFKBOHlatest-700-1.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on December 31, 2023, 12:54:46 PM
Here we go again, you're not only on record in this Forum saying the Zapruder Film is fake, you've got web pages about this "fakery" and even further than that, you've forever documented your opinion about the Zapruder Film in your book, yet you still use the Zapruder Film as proof of your latest "observation"?
This, Mr. Griffith is why you can't be taken seriously about any of your theories. JohnM

So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.

The only devastation that can be seen here, is how to make heads or tails out of your latest conspiracy theory??

I, along with most LNer researchers since day one, accept the authenticated evidence as being, well, authentic. Whereas you just chop and change whichever way the wind blows, which significantly impacts the last specks of your rapidly depleting credibility.

Remember when,

JohnM

What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?


Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
 
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.


This might be more of a case of you just don't want to accept reality.
 
Sturdivan explains the fragments and the deforming bullet leaving a trail of fragments along its path through the brain. You are dismissing Sturdivan’s explanation?

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. Well, this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced X-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a softnosed or hollow point bullet that was fully jacketed and, therefore, not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet because in either of those cases, the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So, this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes. Incidentally, those fragments that are left by the bullet are also very small and do not move very far from their initial, from the place where they departed the bullet. Consequently, they tend to be clustered very closely around the track of the bullet.

------------------------------------------------
There were traces of copper left by the jacketed copper bullet on JFK’s suit coat and shirt, but you claim the same is not possible for the back of the head wound. That is really your belief?

The FBI discovered traces of copper on both JFK’s coat and shirt where the bullet entered his back.

FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 14 (maryferrell.org)     page 85

LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:

---------------------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------

Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------

Does this refresh your memory?

Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.

And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?

Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:

---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan 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 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)
---------------------------------------------------

You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 31, 2023, 08:20:03 PM
So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.

What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?

LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:

---------------------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------

Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------

Does this refresh your memory?

Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.

And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?

Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:

---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan 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 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)
---------------------------------------------------

You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.
Here we go again.
U will not find one gelatine test or soap test etc in the history of the universe that shows that a fragmenting bullet leaves a cloud of fragments anywhere near the bullet's entry into the gelative or soap etc.
The fragments are all always much deeper. Even if hitting something very hard just before entry.

Wait. U said exploding bullet (i mean Sturdivan said). Ok, exploding is different. I will have to have another look.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 10:32:52 AM
So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.


Oh, I get it, the conspirators only altered the sequences that don't affect your wacky conspiracy theories, how frigging convenient!

Anyway, I don't want to offend you and call you an amateur because that would be an insult to an amateur, it's obvious that you have never done any basic editing much less the extensive fakery that you suggest happened to the Zapruder film. Because even 1 removed frame interrupts the flow of the film and is immediately obvious.

For example you have said that they simply edited out numerous Zapruder frames* so that Clint and Jackie appeared to be close in the Nix film, and that they both appeared far away in the Zapruder Film but,
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Hill between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Jackie between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous movement of the backgrounds, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous and synchronized movement of the crowd, you didn't.

What you are inadvertently implying and clearly don't understand is that the fakery involved required separating individual elements, travelling mattes and excessively complicated compositing, each of which involved resizing, matching motion blur and integration at the granular level.

You are so far out of your depth but what the heck, how about you just say they altered the film and you can leave it at that.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Dwt53Nv0/griffith-frames-removed-zapruder.jpg)

Clueless Alterationist's make me SICK!

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 01, 2024, 10:55:13 AM
So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.

What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?

LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:

---------------------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------

Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------

Does this refresh your memory?

Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.

And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?

Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:

---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan 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 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)
---------------------------------------------------

You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.

Maybe you have become too desperate to prove this point that you are no longer rationally assessing the evidence and the experts’ opinions. You are reading things into their words that are not there.

Let me help you stay on track; your point is not proven by what he said. You said it was a bullet fragment Sturdivan said it was not. 

Baden and Sturdivan both think it has not one thing to do with the bullet yet here you are claiming it does. Exactly what is your point? That you know more than they do. You are arguing it is a piece of a bullet and they are telling you that would be impossible because of its shape and that somehow proves your point.

------------------------------------

A conspiracy believer talking about a frangible bullet, how unique. To actually be a card carrying  certified CT don’t you have to have at least one exploding bullet in the story?

The bullet is fragmenting in the brain and as it strikes the inside of the right side of his head upon exiting, it completely fragments leaving fragments. Is your point is the exit wound is an entrance wound? This whole explanation from you circles back to two shooters with carcanos. A point you do not seem to want to address. Where is the evidence of a second bullet.

You seem unable to address the window and chrome strip damage as being an indicator of the direction of the bullets travel. That alone pretty much ends this conspiracy mental meltdown. All discussion as to where the shot came from has to center around the TSBD. A shot from the front is not even in the realm of possibilities.

-----------------------------------

I have read enough conspiracy books to know how one dimensional they really are. A piece of evidence is contorted to be the basis for a massive coverup. This is no different. Everything is explained if their statements are not distorted and perverted in an attempt to extract a different line of reasoning.

Maybe you need to write an addendum to your book explaining how the shot could only have come from the rear because the bullet fragments went forward of JFK. It is just simple physics. Make sure you explain how a bullet that is yawing in flight could alter the trajectory once it hits the skull and brain and follow a new trajectory based on the direction the nose of the bullet is pointing in flight. That will help with your difficulties understanding the entrance and exit wounds. If you would actually read Sturdivan’s testimony instead of scouring it trying to prove strange beliefs, he explains all of this in simple to understand English.

So you agree a bullet can leave a fragment or traces upon entering the skull. If it can leave a little on something pliable like fabric, it can leave a lot on a bone. Baden and Sturdivan agree with you, but that it is not part of a bullet. The question is not can there be a fragment, the question is the description of the fragment being a 6.5mm round shape.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 01, 2024, 12:46:17 PM
Here we go again. U will not find one gelatine test or soap test etc in the history of the universe that shows that a fragmenting bullet leaves a cloud of fragments anywhere near the bullet's entry into the gelative or soap etc. The fragments are all always much deeper. Even if hitting something very hard just before entry. Wait. U said exploding bullet (i mean Sturdivan said). Ok, exploding is different. I will have to have another look.

So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.

You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.

Oh, I get it, the conspirators only altered the sequences that don't affect your wacky conspiracy theories, how frigging convenient!

This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.

Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?

Anyway, I don't want to offend you and call you an amateur because that would be an insult to an amateur, it's obvious that you have never done any basic editing much less the extensive fakery that you suggest happened to the Zapruder film. Because even 1 removed frame interrupts the flow of the film and is immediately obvious.

The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?

FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA)

Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):

https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up (https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up)

And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.

For example you have said that they simply edited out numerous Zapruder frames* so that Clint and Jackie appeared to be close in the Nix film, and that they both appeared far away in the Zapruder Film but,
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Hill between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Jackie between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous movement of the backgrounds, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous and synchronized movement of the crowd, you didn't.

This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.

Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.

We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.

Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.

What you are inadvertently implying and clearly don't understand is that the fakery involved required separating individual elements, travelling mattes and excessively complicated compositing, each of which involved resizing, matching motion blur and integration at the granular level.

Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.

You are so far out of your depth but what the heck, how about you just say they altered the film and you can leave it at that.

You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.

Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.

Clueless Alterationist's make me SICK! JohnM

What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 01, 2024, 01:41:49 PM
So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.

You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.

This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.

Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?

The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?

FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA)

Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):

https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up (https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up)

And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.

This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.

Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.

We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.

Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.

Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.

You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.

Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.

What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school-level English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.

Hilarious, now we know you don't have a clue when you ignore my valid criticisms and are are brainlessly reduced to attacking my occasional lack of an apostrophe or a comma, how pathetic, how about you take some time and instead of this weak diversion, you actually learn the subject that you clearly don't understand and tell us how your massive fakery was accomplished. It's way too easy to make an empty claim but to reinforce your words with actual proof of concept, well, that takes an effort that so far, is way beyond your pay grade.

Quote
Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors.

Talk about delusions of grandeur, it's a well known fact that Einstein committed a lot of grade-school English errors, which btw had zero to do with his "Theory of Relativity", are you claiming that you are smarter than Einstein?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.

For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nj9vH0DS/Brehm-s-son-on-the-move.gif)

As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.

(https://i.postimg.cc/W32ngH6y/Brehm-Zapruder.gif)

Quote
Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist,

WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.

(https://i.postimg.cc/mrt12664/Zapruder-stabilized-a.gif)

Quote
Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh?

OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bN3Zvgnw/ce-885-zapruder-171-172.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpHvfB0b/ce-885-zapruder-313-314.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCX1ywYc/ce-885-zapruder-333-334.jpg)

The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SxchkMr0/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963-04.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/q70dRvbN/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963-05.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tCYr3GZ2/Zap-life.gif)

Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!

JohnM










Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on January 01, 2024, 08:06:02 PM
So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.

You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.
Donahue (MORTAL ERROR) says that fragments are not found near entry. Sturdivan says they are found near entry. Gelatine tells us that Donahue is correct.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 02, 2024, 03:25:18 PM
Maybe you have become too desperate to prove this point that you are no longer rationally assessing the evidence and the experts’ opinions. You are reading things into their words that are not there.

Let me help you stay on track; your point is not proven by what he said. You said it was a bullet fragment Sturdivan said it was not.

Baden and Sturdivan both think it has not one thing to do with the bullet yet here you are claiming it does. Exactly what is your point? That you know more than they do. You are arguing it is a piece of a bullet and they are telling you that would be impossible because of its shape and that somehow proves your point.

You are totally and hopelessly clueless. You still have not read most of my previous replies in this thread, have you? Let me give you a brief history lesson on the 6.5 mm object:

1. The 6.5 mm object was first identified by the Clark Panel. Not having access to optical density (OD) analysis, they assumed, logically enough, that it was a bullet fragment, since it clearly is not a bone fragment.

2. The RC and HSCA medical panels noted the object and likewise assumed it was a bullet fragment.

3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fragment's existence. No WC apologist has yet explained how in the world this fragment could have come from an FMJ bullet that entered at the cowlick site, much less from the bullet's cross section. The HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the fragment's presence. Sturdivan simply ignored the fragment in his 2005 book.

4. Some 20 years after the HSCA, using new optical density measurement technology, Dr. David Mantik, who happens to be a physicist and a radiation oncologist, discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. He also found, using high magnification and OD analysis, that the image of the 6.5 mm object was double-exposed/ghosted over a genuine smaller fragment that is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size.

The brightness of the 6.5 mm object obscured the genuine smaller fragment within it from detection, until Dr. Mantik examined it with an OD densitometer, which he uses in his work as a radiation oncologist, and then applied high magnification to it. Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements and analysis.

5. Sturdivan only announced that he no longer believed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment after Dr. Mantik published his OD analysis in 1998. Sturdivan first rejected the object as a fragment in 1999 in emails to researchers, and he rejected it as a fragment in his 2005 book JFK Myths.

6. Sturdivan, to his great credit, began explaining in 1999 why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment but must be an artifact. He did so again in his 2005 book. However, as mentioned, he did not even try to explain the McDonnel fragment. Since he had already admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull, he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for the McDonnel fragment.

7. Moreover, Sturdivan said nothing in his 2005 book about the genuine smaller fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. He was surely aware of it, because he cited Dr. Mantik's OD analysis. Yet, he chose to ignore it, obviously because he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for it.

A conspiracy believer talking about a frangible bullet, how unique. To actually be a card carrying  certified CT don’t you have to have at least one exploding bullet in the story?

The bullet is fragmenting in the brain and as it strikes the inside of the right side of his head upon exiting, it completely fragments leaving fragments. Is your point is the exit wound is an entrance wound? This whole explanation from you circles back to two shooters with carcanos. A point you do not seem to want to address. Where is the evidence of a second bullet.

This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.

Where in all of your mangled-English propaganda is there an explanation for the two separate wound paths through the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage? Where is it? How did those two wound paths get created if only one bullet struck the skull?

Where is the entrance wound that can explain the high fragment trail? Where is it? Even your own side's best wound ballistics expert has repudiated the entry site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP fabricated to try to explain the high fragment trail. Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail's existence? Huh? Why?

You seem unable to address the window and chrome strip damage as being an indicator of the direction of the bullets travel. That alone pretty much ends this conspiracy mental meltdown. All discussion as to where the shot came from has to center around the TSBD. A shot from the front is not even in the realm of possibilities.

LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?

And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.

And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.

Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.

I have read enough conspiracy books to know how one dimensional they really are.

And I say you're lying. You repeatedly blunder all over the place over basic stuff, stuff that has been covered in numerous scholarly books on the case for conspiracy. Heck, you don't even have a good handle on the lone-gunman theory. 

A piece of evidence is contorted to be the basis for a massive coverup. This is no different. Everything is explained if their statements are not distorted and perverted in an attempt to extract a different line of reasoning.

More of your blah-blah sweeping general assertions based on your ignorance of JFK assassination research.  Just look at how badly you blundered over the 6.5 mm object, as we see above. You didn't even know the basics about the 6.5 mm object, not to mention the McDonnel fragment.

The only person contorting evidence is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you need to write an addendum to your book explaining how the shot could only have come from the rear because the bullet fragments went forward of JFK. It is just simple physics. Make sure you explain how a bullet that is yawing in flight could alter the trajectory once it hits the skull and brain and follow a new trajectory based on the direction the nose of the bullet is pointing in flight. That will help with your difficulties understanding the entrance and exit wounds. If you would actually read Sturdivan’s testimony instead of scouring it trying to prove strange beliefs, he explains all of this in simple to understand English.

LOL! Uhhhhh, how about the two bullet fragments in the back of the skull???????? Did you forget about those? They certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did they? How about the bullet or fragment that caused the four-inch, dug-out bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street? That certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did it? 

What's more, how about the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague? How do you get a bullet/fragment from JFK's skull to a curb over 250 feet away with the limousine's roll bar in between? Any fragment from JFK's head would have had to magically clear the limo's roll bar to have any chance of hitting the curb near Tague. Did the fragment have its own propulsion system that enabled it to magically fly over the roll bar? If the windshield and the windshield's chrome stopped the two fragments found in the front of the limo from leaving the limo, how in the world would another fragment from JFK's head have cleared the roll bar?

And on and on and on we could go. The problem is that your knowledge of the JFK case is very limited and that your research has been woefully biased and incomplete.

"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

So you agree a bullet can leave a fragment or traces upon entering the skull. If it can leave a little on something pliable like fabric, it can leave a lot on a bone. Baden and Sturdivan agree with you, but that it is not part of a bullet. The question is not can there be a fragment, the question is the description of the fragment being a 6.5mm round shape.

What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 03, 2024, 09:28:40 AM
You are totally and hopelessly clueless. You still have not read most of my previous replies in this thread, have you? Let me give you a brief history lesson on the 6.5 mm object:

1. The 6.5 mm object was first identified by the Clark Panel. Not having access to optical density (OD) analysis, they assumed, logically enough, that it was a bullet fragment, since it clearly is not a bone fragment.

2. The RC and HSCA medical panels noted the object and likewise assumed it was a bullet fragment.

3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fragment's existence. No WC apologist has yet explained how in the world this fragment could have come from an FMJ bullet that entered at the cowlick site, much less from the bullet's cross section. The HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the fragment's presence. Sturdivan simply ignored the fragment in his 2005 book.

4. Some 20 years after the HSCA, using new optical density measurement technology, Dr. David Mantik, who happens to be a physicist and a radiation oncologist, discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. He also found, using high magnification and OD analysis, that the image of the 6.5 mm object was double-exposed/ghosted over a genuine smaller fragment that is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size.

The brightness of the 6.5 mm object obscured the genuine smaller fragment within it from detection, until Dr. Mantik examined it with an OD densitometer, which he uses in his work as a radiation oncologist, and then applied high magnification to it. Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements and analysis.

5. Sturdivan only announced that he no longer believed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment after Dr. Mantik published his OD analysis in 1998. Sturdivan first rejected the object as a fragment in 1999 in emails to researchers, and he rejected it as a fragment in his 2005 book JFK Myths.

6. Sturdivan, to his great credit, began explaining in 1999 why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment but must be an artifact. He did so again in his 2005 book. However, as mentioned, he did not even try to explain the McDonnel fragment. Since he had already admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull, he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for the McDonnel fragment.

7. Moreover, Sturdivan said nothing in his 2005 book about the genuine smaller fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. He was surely aware of it, because he cited Dr. Mantik's OD analysis. Yet, he chose to ignore it, obviously because he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for it.

This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.

Where in all of your mangled-English propaganda is there an explanation for the two separate wound paths through the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage? Where is it? How did those two wound paths get created if only one bullet struck the skull?

Where is the entrance wound that can explain the high fragment trail? Where is it? Even your own side's best wound ballistics expert has repudiated the entry site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP fabricated to try to explain the high fragment trail. Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail's existence? Huh? Why?

LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?

And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.

And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.

Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.

And I say you're lying. You repeatedly blunder all over the place over basic stuff, stuff that has been covered in numerous scholarly books on the case for conspiracy. Heck, you don't even have a good handle on the lone-gunman theory. 

More of your blah-blah sweeping general assertions based on your ignorance of JFK assassination research.  Just look at how badly you blundered over the 6.5 mm object, as we see above. You didn't even know the basics about the 6.5 mm object, not to mention the McDonnel fragment.

The only person contorting evidence is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL! Uhhhhh, how about the two bullet fragments in the back of the skull???????? Did you forget about those? They certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did they? How about the bullet or fragment that caused the four-inch, dug-out bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street? That certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did it? 

What's more, how about the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague? How do you get a bullet/fragment from JFK's skull to a curb over 250 feet away with the limousine's roll bar in between? Any fragment from JFK's head would have had to magically clear the limo's roll bar to have any chance of hitting the curb near Tague. Did the fragment have its own propulsion system that enabled it to magically fly over the roll bar? If the windshield and the windshield's chrome stopped the two fragments found in the front of the limo from leaving the limo, how in the world would another fragment from JFK's head have cleared the roll bar?

And on and on and on we could go. The problem is that your knowledge of the JFK case is very limited and that your research has been woefully biased and incomplete.

"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.

MTG--”LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
 
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
 
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.”


Seriously, you have to be told that there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome strip damage than the trajectory of the head wound of JFK? Do you think it is because JFK is sitting in the back of the car and the fragment damage takes place 10 feet in front of him. You believe that by some form of conspiratorial magic the trajectories of all three should somehow line up? Really? 

The HSCA did everything to help the conspiratorial cause, but the evidence clearly shows it was just one shooter.

“Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets could be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository.

-----------------------------------------------------
 

So which of your statements is the correct statement. Can there be, or is it, can there not be a fragment left at the outer table? According to you and Dr. McDonnel there can be a fragment left at the outer table. According to you, there cannot be a fragment left at the outer table.

MTG--”3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table.”

MTG--”What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?”

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

 

You are making this way too hard. It is really simple. Here is what the truth is and it explains the assassination. There were only two shots fired that day by LHO. The rest of this nonsense is just mental masturbation over nothing. It is nothing more than wallowing around in the mud looking for evidence and taking that evidence out of context in the hopes of proving some bizarre conspiracy. Your combined explanation of the headshot makes absolutely no sense when viewed in its totality. Where are the entrance and exit wounds for the two shots? Where are the witnesses confirming two shots struck the president’s head? Zapruder’s film completely affirms there was only one shot not two that struck JFK’s head.

What is interesting and I think defines the need for a conspiracy in the mindset of people believing in a conspiracy, is the fact that Josiah Thompson knew in 1966 that LHO only fired two shots. He wrote about the shell information in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. He knew from having examined 30+ shells that the chamber mark was not on CE 543 but was on every other shell he examined that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI during testing. Even the unfired cartridge CE141 had the chamber mark. The chamber marks existence was first identified by the FBI in Hoover’s June 2nd letter to Rankin. Josiah Thompson chose to use the information in a manner that this somehow proved the existence of a second shooter instead of using it to prove the SBT and lone gunman. 

Now here it is 60+ years later and you are still taking known information and attempting to pervert it into a conspiracy. Not because there is a conspiracy but because you need one to understand what happened. Good for you to be part of the 2/3 of the people who believe but cannot even raise a question as to whether there was a conspiracy. 

 -------------------------------------

MTG--"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

This desire to be a lemming and join the crowd is definitely affecting your judgement. Maybe try to think for yourself.

Both the WC and HSCA conclusions state that the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. In reality the HSCA and WC believed there were only two shots not three. The HSCA four shot dictabelt and conspiracy nonsense were the result of the goofy thinking that took place in the 70’s. Wasn’t Gary Mack himself one of the sponsors of the Dictabelt fiasco you appear to follow.

-----------------------------------------------

MTG--”This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.”


No, I know what they are and their purpose, I just don’t think you do.

--------------------------------

It looks like you are lost and confused in all the different types of evidence. Maybe quantifying what is important and what is not will help you to understand. Here is a few to start you off. 

Important—window damage, damage to chrome strip, trajectory, Eyewitness accounts of there only having been one shot and they hear the bullet hit, fragmented bullet evidence,

Not important—Unknown artifact that is not a bullet fragment, explaining a fragmenting bullets path through the brain, frangible bullets, quantifying brain damage when everyone knows a third of it was blown in the air.


It is interesting you do understand the importance of the forward damage to the window and chrome strip. Actually, talking about it seems to make you squeal which is encouraging that you really do understand the importance.

-----------------------------------

 

MTG--”Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.”


Both Sides? You understand there is a whole other logical explanation for all this nonsense, but you choose to not believe it?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.

Doesn’t your star expert refute this? 

Again, the reason for this is it was not a bullet fragment. You and a special case expert believe it is a bullet fragment, but I don’t see where anyone else does. 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 03, 2024, 02:53:06 PM
MTG--”LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
 
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
 
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.”


Seriously, you have to be told that there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome strip damage than the trajectory of the head wound of JFK? Do you think it is because JFK is sitting in the back of the car and the fragment damage takes place 10 feet in front of him. You believe that by some form of conspiratorial magic the trajectories of all three should somehow line up? Really? 

The HSCA did everything to help the conspiratorial cause, but the evidence clearly shows it was just one shooter.

“Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets could be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository.

----------------------------------------------------- 

So which of your statements is the correct statement. Can there be, or is it, can there not be a fragment left at the outer table? According to you and Dr. McDonnel there can be a fragment left at the outer table. According to you, there cannot be a fragment left at the outer table.

MTG--”3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table.”

MTG--”What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?”

===================== 

You are making this way too hard. It is really simple. Here is what the truth is and it explains the assassination. There were only two shots fired that day by LHO. The rest of this nonsense is just mental masturbation over nothing. It is nothing more than wallowing around in the mud looking for evidence and taking that evidence out of context in the hopes of proving some bizarre conspiracy. Your combined explanation of the headshot makes absolutely no sense when viewed in its totality. Where are the entrance and exit wounds for the two shots? Where are the witnesses confirming two shots struck the president’s head? Zapruder’s film completely affirms there was only one shot not two that struck JFK’s head.

What is interesting and I think defines the need for a conspiracy in the mindset of people believing in a conspiracy, is the fact that Josiah Thompson knew in 1966 that LHO only fired two shots. He wrote about the shell information in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. He knew from having examined 30+ shells that the chamber mark was not on CE 543 but was on every other shell he examined that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI during testing. Even the unfired cartridge CE141 had the chamber mark. The chamber marks existence was first identified by the FBI in Hoover’s June 2nd letter to Rankin. Josiah Thompson chose to use the information in a manner that this somehow proved the existence of a second shooter instead of using it to prove the SBT and lone gunman. 

Now here it is 60+ years later and you are still taking known information and attempting to pervert it into a conspiracy. Not because there is a conspiracy but because you need one to understand what happened. Good for you to be part of the 2/3 of the people who believe but cannot even raise a question as to whether there was a conspiracy. 

 -------------------------------------

MTG--"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

This desire to be a lemming and join the crowd is definitely affecting your judgement. Maybe try to think for yourself.

Both the WC and HSCA conclusions state that the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. In reality the HSCA and WC believed there were only two shots not three. The HSCA four shot dictabelt and conspiracy nonsense were the result of the goofy thinking that took place in the 70’s. Wasn’t Gary Mack himself one of the sponsors of the Dictabelt fiasco you appear to follow.

-----------------------------------------------

MTG--”This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.”


No, I know what they are and their purpose, I just don’t think you do.

--------------------------------

It looks like you are lost and confused in all the different types of evidence. Maybe quantifying what is important and what is not will help you to understand. Here is a few to start you off. 

Important—window damage, damage to chrome strip, trajectory, Eyewitness accounts of there only having been one shot and they hear the bullet hit, fragmented bullet evidence,

Not important—Unknown artifact that is not a bullet fragment, explaining a fragmenting bullets path through the brain, frangible bullets, quantifying brain damage when everyone knows a third of it was blown in the air.

It is interesting you do understand the importance of the forward damage to the window and chrome strip. Actually, talking about it seems to make you squeal which is encouraging that you really do understand the importance.

----------------------------------- 

MTG--”Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.”


Both Sides? You understand there is a whole other logical explanation for all this nonsense, but you choose to not believe it?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.

Doesn’t your star expert refute this? 

Again, the reason for this is it was not a bullet fragment. You and a special case expert believe it is a bullet fragment, but I don’t see where anyone else does.

This has got to be the most pitiful, witless reply I have ever read on any JFK forum. You either suffer from a serious reading comprehension problem or you must think that everyone else does. If this were a private dialogue, I would not even bother responding. But, since this is a public dialogue, I will reply by making the following points:

1. There are at least two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull: the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. Those fragments could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has explained quite capably why no FMJ bullet would or could have left a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull. Several others ballistics and forensic experts have likewise noted that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on the outer table, much less between the outer table and the galea (i.e., the McDonnel fragment), when they penetrate skulls. No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has done so.

2. The only feasible, rational, scientific explanation for those fragments is that they are ricochet fragments. We now know that the Clark Panel privately believed that the 6.5 mm "fragment" was a ricochet fragment. Not having the benefit of OD analysis, the panel did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that there is a genuine smaller fragment within the object's image.

We know from a number of eyewitness accounts that a bullet struck the pavement near and behind the limousine soon after the limo turned onto Elm Street. The two back-of-head fragments came from the bullet that struck the pavement.

Even Gerald Posner admits that the accounts of a pavement strike are credible and that a bullet did strike the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting sequence. (However, Posner tries to explain the pavement strike with his bizarre tree-limb-collision theory in which the bullet split apart after hitting a limb of the intervening oak tree and sent one fragment sharply downward to strike the pavement behind the limo, and magically sent another fragment through the other tree limbs to fly over 400 feet, then strike the curb near Tague with enough force to chip the curb, and then send a piece of concrete streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face!)

3. To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.

Lead bullets can leave fragments on the outer table and in the scalp when they penetrate the skull. However, of course, your theory requires that only FMJ ammo was used. Also, there is no entry wound that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit the two back-of-head fragments, and, as noted, your theory cannot allow for a lead bullet anyway.

4. Uh, yes, absolutely, the windshield and chrome damage should at least roughly align with any alleged trajectory from the sixth-floor window through the skull, specifically with a trajectory from the alleged sniper's window and then to and through a point above the right ear.

A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.

When Congressman Fithian questioned Canning on this specific issue, why didn't Canning say, "Oh, we would never expect the windshield damage to align with the path of the bullet that struck the head"?

And why do you suppose Canning did not even try to align the chrome damage with the lone-gunman headshot trajectory? Obviously, if the windshield damage and the headshot trajectory "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment," the chrome damage would be even more unaligned with the headshot trajectory.

Moreover, I notice you guys have said nothing about the fact that to get the cowlick site to align with a shot from the sixth-floor window, Canning found it necessary to move JFK nearly 2 feet to the left, almost to the middle of the seat (HSCA exhibit F-138)--yet in his SBT trajectory diagram, Canning put JFK flush against the right side of the limo (HSCA exhibit F-144).

5. Among many other evasions, I noticed you ducked my question about what fragments could have caused the windshield and chrome damage. The two fragments found in the limo are CE 567 and CE 569. CE 567 was found on the middle-front seat, while CE 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the driver's seat. Do you see the problem? Think about how much velocity the fragments would have needed to dent the chrome and crack the windshield, and then think about how those fragments could have ended up on the floor to the right of the driver's seat and on the middle seat. Think about it.

6. You were obviously unaware of the fact that for years WC apologists denied that the chrome dent occurred during the shooting. In fact, a few of the worst WC apologists still make this claim. SS chief James Rowley falsely asserted that the chrome dent was made during "routine maintenance" in November 1961. The WC pretended there was doubt about whether the chrome dent happened during the shooting, but admitted that FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier believed the dent was made by a fragment traveling at a "fairly high velocity."

Rowley's lie about the chrome dent was refuted, and any alleged "doubt" that the dent was made during the shooting was removed, when photographic evidence was found that proved that the chrome topping was undented before the assassination.

7. What fragment from JFK's head could have dented the back of the rearview mirror and ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor right beside the right side of the driver's seat? To repeat, we're talking about the back of the rearview mirror, not the side or the front, but the back. That fragment must have ricocheted off the windshield and then struck the back of the mirror. Now, how on this planet could a bullet that bounced off the windshield and hit the back of the mirror have ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor to the right of the driver's seat? Think about that.

8. I notice you declined to explain what entry site could have caused the high fragment trail and why the autopsy doctors failed to mention this obvious fragment trail in the autopsy report.

9. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage in the brain, far below the cowlick area and with no connecting path or fragment trail to the much-higher cortical damage. Ignoring this unsolvable problem won't make it go away. We both know that your side cannot explain the subcortical damage.

10. Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict)

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html)

11. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet could have entered at the debunked cowlick entry site when the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site. If a bullet had entered there, the underlying cerebral cortex would have been severely damaged. This is one of the reasons that even your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site and why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has likewise rejected the site. The WC's three medical experts all adamantly rejected the cowlick site, by the way, as did the chief autopsy photographer who took photos of the rear head entry wound.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 04, 2024, 05:55:35 AM
This has got to be the most pitiful, witless reply I have ever read on any JFK forum. You either suffer from a serious reading comprehension problem or you must think that everyone else does. If this were a private dialogue, I would not even bother responding. But, since this is a public dialogue, I will reply by making the following points:

1. There are at least two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull: the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. Those fragments could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has explained quite capably why no FMJ bullet would or could have left a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull. Several others ballistics and forensic experts have likewise noted that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on the outer table, much less between the outer table and the galea (i.e., the McDonnel fragment), when they penetrate skulls. No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has done so.

2. The only feasible, rational, scientific explanation for those fragments is that they are ricochet fragments. We now know that the Clark Panel privately believed that the 6.5 mm "fragment" was a ricochet fragment. Not having the benefit of OD analysis, the panel did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that there is a genuine smaller fragment within the object's image.

We know from a number of eyewitness accounts that a bullet struck the pavement near and behind the limousine soon after the limo turned onto Elm Street. The two back-of-head fragments came from the bullet that struck the pavement.

Even Gerald Posner admits that the accounts of a pavement strike are credible and that a bullet did strike the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting sequence. (However, Posner tries to explain the pavement strike with his bizarre tree-limb-collision theory in which the bullet split apart after hitting a limb of the intervening oak tree and sent one fragment sharply downward to strike the pavement behind the limo, and magically sent another fragment through the other tree limbs to fly over 400 feet, then strike the curb near Tague with enough force to chip the curb, and then send a piece of concrete streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face!)

3. To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.

Lead bullets can leave fragments on the outer table and in the scalp when they penetrate the skull. However, of course, your theory requires that only FMJ ammo was used. Also, there is no entry wound that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit the two back-of-head fragments, and, as noted, your theory cannot allow for a lead bullet anyway.

4. Uh, yes, absolutely, the windshield and chrome damage should at least roughly align with any alleged trajectory from the sixth-floor window through the skull, specifically with a trajectory from the alleged sniper's window and then to and through a point above the right ear.

A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.

When Congressman Fithian questioned Canning on this specific issue, why didn't Canning say, "Oh, we would never expect the windshield damage to align with the path of the bullet that struck the head"?

And why do you suppose Canning did not even try to align the chrome damage with the lone-gunman headshot trajectory? Obviously, if the windshield damage and the headshot trajectory "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment," the chrome damage would be even more unaligned with the headshot trajectory.

Moreover, I notice you guys have said nothing about the fact that to get the cowlick site to align with a shot from the sixth-floor window, Canning found it necessary to move JFK nearly 2 feet to the left, almost to the middle of the seat (HSCA exhibit F-138)--yet in his SBT trajectory diagram, Canning put JFK flush against the right side of the limo (HSCA exhibit F-144).

5. Among many other evasions, I noticed you ducked my question about what fragments could have caused the windshield and chrome damage. The two fragments found in the limo are CE 567 and CE 569. CE 567 was found on the middle-front seat, while CE 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the driver's seat. Do you see the problem? Think about how much velocity the fragments would have needed to dent the chrome and crack the windshield, and then think about how those fragments could have ended up on the floor to the right of the driver's seat and on the middle seat. Think about it.

6. You were obviously unaware of the fact that for years WC apologists denied that the chrome dent occurred during the shooting. In fact, a few of the worst WC apologists still make this claim. SS chief James Rowley falsely asserted that the chrome dent was made during "routine maintenance" in November 1961. The WC pretended there was doubt about whether the chrome dent happened during the shooting, but admitted that FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier believed the dent was made by a fragment traveling at a "fairly high velocity."

Rowley's lie about the chrome dent was refuted, and any alleged "doubt" that the dent was made during the shooting was removed, when photographic evidence was found that proved that the chrome topping was undented before the assassination.

7. What fragment from JFK's head could have dented the back of the rearview mirror and ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor right beside the right side of the driver's seat? To repeat, we're talking about the back of the rearview mirror, not the side or the front, but the back. That fragment must have ricocheted off the windshield and then struck the back of the mirror. Now, how on this planet could a bullet that bounced off the windshield and hit the back of the mirror have ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor to the right of the driver's seat? Think about that.

8. I notice you declined to explain what entry site could have caused the high fragment trail and why the autopsy doctors failed to mention this obvious fragment trail in the autopsy report.

9. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage in the brain, far below the cowlick area and with no connecting path or fragment trail to the much-higher cortical damage. Ignoring this unsolvable problem won't make it go away. We both know that your side cannot explain the subcortical damage.

10. Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict)

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html)

11. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet could have entered at the debunked cowlick entry site when the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site. If a bullet had entered there, the underlying cerebral cortex would have been severely damaged. This is one of the reasons that even your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site and why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has likewise rejected the site. The WC's three medical experts all adamantly rejected the cowlick site, by the way, as did the chief autopsy photographer who took photos of the rear head entry wound.

MTG-”To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.”

I think the basic point I grasp is the fact you are making all this nonsense up on the fly. That is why one thought never tracks from another. So, they could be fragments from LHO’s gun or not? Just now you have added a ricochet to the mix of improbabilities taking place with this one shot. All of this posting and gyrating because you can not accept the fact LHO fired two shots.

Let’s look at the MTG model as it was slowly dribbled out and then presented as fact;

Two shots

One with a frangible bullet

Two entrance wounds and no exit wounds

Bullet fragments that are the result of a stray shot hitting the pavement and depositing two fragments in the exact spot that later would be an entrance wound from LHO’s rifle shot.

Is there a concise explanation of what you believe took place with this shot. To date it is a rambling collection of odd beliefs that don’t necessarily track from one thought to the next. Seriously, two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. Can see why you are met with skepticism?

-------------------------------------

You are having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal?

You post an article from James DiEugenio as something someone should actually read. Really. I feel cheated out of the 5 seconds it took to hit the link and read his name and click off.

Pat Speer is uber-cautious? Since when? He has a great website but cautious would be another thing.

--------------------

The EOP site vs Cowlick site seems to be causing you great difficulty. Do you even think JFK was shot in the back of the head or not? I would think the WC had the body there in front of them and should have seen the hole. I am just guessing because you have scatter gunned approach to your thinking, but if this is about trajectory, Sturdivan explains what happens with the bullet you really need to read his testimony.

 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 04, 2024, 04:41:03 PM
MTG-”To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.”

I think the basic point I grasp is the fact you are making all this nonsense up on the fly. That is why one thought never tracks from another. So, they could be fragments from LHO’s gun or not? Just now you have added a ricochet to the mix of improbabilities taking place with this one shot. All of this posting and gyrating because you can not accept the fact LHO fired two shots.

Let’s look at the MTG model as it was slowly dribbled out and then presented as fact;

Two shots

One with a frangible bullet

Two entrance wounds and no exit wounds

Bullet fragments that are the result of a stray shot hitting the pavement and depositing two fragments in the exact spot that later would be an entrance wound from LHO’s rifle shot.

Is there a concise explanation of what you believe took place with this shot. To date it is a rambling collection of odd beliefs that don’t necessarily track from one thought to the next. Seriously, two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. Can see why you are met with skepticism?

-------------------------------------

You are having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal?

You post an article from James DiEugenio as something someone should actually read. Really. I feel cheated out of the 5 seconds it took to hit the link and read his name and click off.

Pat Speer is uber-cautious? Since when? He has a great website but cautious would be another thing.

--------------------

The EOP site vs Cowlick site seems to be causing you great difficulty. Do you even think JFK was shot in the back of the head or not? I would think the WC had the body there in front of them and should have seen the hole. I am just guessing because you have scatter gunned approach to your thinking, but if this is about trajectory, Sturdivan explains what happens with the bullet you really need to read his testimony.

This is supposed to be your reply to the points I made? You either lack the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence being presented to you or else you are pretending that you don't understand them. This is the only thing I can conclude from your reply. I have put the facts before you in the simplest language I can muster, but you still either just don't grasp them or else you are purposely (and embarrassingly) pretending you don't get them. Let me ask some questions:

What in the world could lead to believe that the EOP site vs. the cowlick site is causing me "great difficulty"? What "great difficulty" are you talking about?

How could you not have grasped by now that I have said repeatedly that JFK was hit in the back of the head and that the bullet entered at the EOP site? How could have you failed to grasp this point by now?

How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?

As I think I've made quite clear, I posit one shot to the EOP and one shot to the right temple. These two entry points explain the cortical damage, the subcortical damage, and the high fragment trail. (I haven't spent much time on the exit points in this thread, but I accept as accurate the dozens of accounts of a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. This was the exit point for the right-temple shot. I believe that the EOP shot possibly did not leave the skull but that the bullet material from this shot was removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne. This would explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the skull x-rays.)

Regarding Sturdivan's testimony, why did you ignore the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now and as has been known for years, Sturdivan was never shown the original/unenhanced skull x-rays but only the enhanced ones before he testified? Do you not understand that because Sturdivan had not seen the unenhanced originals before he testified, he was unaware of the huge cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region?

Have you read Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, in which he explains in some detail why the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment, in which he explains that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments in the outer table as they penetrate skulls, and in which he repudiates the cowlick entry site?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?

Will you ever try to explain how a bullet that entered at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage far below the site while also causing the cortical damage, given the fact that there is no connection of any kind between them? There's no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing that connects that cortical damage and the subcortical damage. If only one bullet entered the skull, what caused the subcortical damage?

Why do you say that Pat Speer is not uber cautious? Are you aware that most other researchers regard him as being extremely cautious, and that many WC apologists cite his hyper-cautious research on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays?

Will you ever try to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? The trail is above the cowlick site and does not extend to/from it. What entry site could have caused that trail?

Are you ever going to explain the origin of the two back-of-head fragments? I notice this is another issue you ducked. Since FMJ bullets do not and cannot deposit fragments, especially not from their cross section, on the outer table or scalp when they penetrate skulls, where did those fragments come from?

Speaking of those two back-of-head fragments, are you ever going to identify the entry site with which they can be associated? (I'll save you some time: there isn't one.)

Given that I talked about the cracks in the windshield and the chrome dent, what could have led you to conclude that I am "having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal"? That's just baffling. It's as if you only understand half of the words I'm using or something. Is the problem that your brain simply cannot process any information that contradicts your version of the shooting?

Why did you decline to explain how a bullet fragment that ricocheted off the windshield and dented the back of the rearview mirror could have ended up on the middle seat or on the floor on the right side of the driver's seat? How could that have worked? How could that have happened?

Why did you decline to explain why Canning did not even try to align the chrome dent with the headshot trajectory?

Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?

What about Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on NAA and the JFK case? I notice you said nothing about it.

What about the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Wexler study on NAA and the JFK case? (Dr. Aguilar discusses it at length in his article.) Here's an article on the study in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 05, 2024, 12:56:28 AM
We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?

OMG, 16 surfaces that sounds like a lot, what empirical proof do you have that each of these spattered surfaces adds up to be more than 1 to 2 ounces of brains, did anybody collect and/or describe the chunk sizes or are you as usual guessing?

This lower quality Zapruder film GIF shows a mist of exploding matter and this alone would reach quite a lot of varying surfaces.

(https://i.postimg.cc/TwZC17K4/Blood-spray-dissipation-zapruder.gif)

I don't know if you counted the inside of Kennedy's limo windshield as one of the surfaces but what is there is quite small!

(https://i.postimg.cc/02kCXzv3/JFK-windscreen-a.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 05, 2024, 06:12:38 AM
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 05, 2024, 01:44:18 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/c2/POZDZnER_o.jpg)

You realize that your misleading goofy graphic contradicts itself, right? And why do you keep ignoring HSCA exhibit F-32? Because it shows that Riley's placement of the cowlick site agrees with the HSCA FPP's placement of the site?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 05, 2024, 02:06:39 PM
OMG, 16 surfaces that sounds like a lot, what empirical proof do you have that each of these spattered surfaces adds up to be more than 1 to 2 ounces of brains, did anybody collect and/or describe the chunk sizes or are you as usual guessing?

Just the portion of JFK's brain that Jackie was able to collect was enough that she could hold it in her hands when she brought it into the Parkland ER.

There was brain matter splattered inside the right-rear part of the limo, on the follow-up car's windshield, on the two left-trailing patrolmen's windshields, on Agent Kinney's clothes, on Officer Hargis's clothes, etc., etc. These are only some of the surfaces onto which brain matter was splattered.

Are you really going to suggest that all of this brain matter amounted to no more than 2 ounces? Really?

Did you forget about the fact that the skull x-rays show a large amount of right brain missing? Dr. Fred Hodges of the RC medical panel noted this in his report:

---------------------------------------
AP and two lateral views show. . . . A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air. (p. 2, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3))
---------------------------------------

Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fact with OD measurements. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick admitted that the dark area in the front on the skull x-rays indicates a substantive amount of missing brain.

This lower quality Zapruder film GIF shows a mist of exploding matter and this alone would reach quite a lot of varying surfaces.

I don't know if you counted the inside of Kennedy's limo windshield as one of the surfaces but what is there is quite small!

JohnM

Actually, no, I did not count the inside of the limo's windshield. Here are the surfaces I counted:

• The back seat of JFK’s limousine.
• The right-rear passenger door of the limo.
• The trunk/rear hood of the limo.
• The front seat of the limo (per Roy Kellerman).
• Roy Kellerman's coat ("it was all over my coat").
• The back of William Greer's coat (per Greer himself, and per Kellerman).
• Governor Connally's clothes.
• Nellie Connally's clothes.
• Officer Martin's clothes.
• Officer Hargis's clothes.
• Officer Martin's motorcycle.
• Officer Hargis's motorcycle.
• Sam Kinney's clothes (riding in the follow-up car).
• The windshield of the follow-up car.
• The drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart.
• Jackie's dress (she said JFK's brains were "all over me").

I should add that Tom Robinson, one of the morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, said that the amount of brain tissue missing from JFK's brain was about the size of a closed fist. A closed fist would be equal in size to at least one-third of an average male brain. (The male brain is typically about 5.5 inches wide, 6.5 inches long, and 3.6 inches high.)

Anyone who argues that all of this brain matter amounted to no more than 2 ounces of tissue is probably brainwashed beyond recovery. And, again, the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain to be missing, which, among other things, proves that the brain photos are fraudulent. No wonder that the autopsy photographer who took the brain photos said that the existing brain photos were not the ones he took.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 05:10:51 AM
This is supposed to be your reply to the points I made? You either lack the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence being presented to you or else you are pretending that you don't understand them. This is the only thing I can conclude from your reply. I have put the facts before you in the simplest language I can muster, but you still either just don't grasp them or else you are purposely (and embarrassingly) pretending you don't get them. Let me ask some questions:

What in the world could lead to believe that the EOP site vs. the cowlick site is causing me "great difficulty"? What "great difficulty" are you talking about?

How could you not have grasped by now that I have said repeatedly that JFK was hit in the back of the head and that the bullet entered at the EOP site? How could have you failed to grasp this point by now?

How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?

As I think I've made quite clear, I posit one shot to the EOP and one shot to the right temple. These two entry points explain the cortical damage, the subcortical damage, and the high fragment trail. (I haven't spent much time on the exit points in this thread, but I accept as accurate the dozens of accounts of a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. This was the exit point for the right-temple shot. I believe that the EOP shot possibly did not leave the skull but that the bullet material from this shot was removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne. This would explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the skull x-rays.)

Regarding Sturdivan's testimony, why did you ignore the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now and as has been known for years, Sturdivan was never shown the original/unenhanced skull x-rays but only the enhanced ones before he testified? Do you not understand that because Sturdivan had not seen the unenhanced originals before he testified, he was unaware of the huge cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region?

Have you read Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, in which he explains in some detail why the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment, in which he explains that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments in the outer table as they penetrate skulls, and in which he repudiates the cowlick entry site?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?

Will you ever try to explain how a bullet that entered at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage far below the site while also causing the cortical damage, given the fact that there is no connection of any kind between them? There's no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing that connects that cortical damage and the subcortical damage. If only one bullet entered the skull, what caused the subcortical damage?

Why do you say that Pat Speer is not uber cautious? Are you aware that most other researchers regard him as being extremely cautious, and that many WC apologists cite his hyper-cautious research on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays?

Will you ever try to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? The trail is above the cowlick site and does not extend to/from it. What entry site could have caused that trail?

Are you ever going to explain the origin of the two back-of-head fragments? I notice this is another issue you ducked. Since FMJ bullets do not and cannot deposit fragments, especially not from their cross section, on the outer table or scalp when they penetrate skulls, where did those fragments come from?

Speaking of those two back-of-head fragments, are you ever going to identify the entry site with which they can be associated? (I'll save you some time: there isn't one.)

Given that I talked about the cracks in the windshield and the chrome dent, what could have led you to conclude that I am "having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal"? That's just baffling. It's as if you only understand half of the words I'm using or something. Is the problem that your brain simply cannot process any information that contradicts your version of the shooting?

Why did you decline to explain how a bullet fragment that ricocheted off the windshield and dented the back of the rearview mirror could have ended up on the middle seat or on the floor on the right side of the driver's seat? How could that have worked? How could that have happened?

Why did you decline to explain why Canning did not even try to align the chrome dent with the headshot trajectory?

Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?

What about Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on NAA and the JFK case? I notice you said nothing about it.

What about the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Wexler study on NAA and the JFK case? (Dr. Aguilar discusses it at length in his article.) Here's an article on the study in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?

 

Any chance you will ever spell what you believe took place on the head shot? It is extremely hard to grasp the idea here when you are all over the board about what took place. Two shooters then not two shooters, Frangible bullets then not frangible bullets, a shot from behind and the front and then not a shot from the front, two entrance wounds and then not two entrance wounds.

I guess your two shooters model is dead in the water now? It appears reality seems to be creeping into your theory. It appears you have decided that the WC assessment of the head shot near the EOP is better than the HSCA’s cowlick sight. If you no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets is part of your theory, this is progress. Welcome to the reality that Oswald did it alone. 

----------------------------------   

MTG __”Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:”
 


The NAA was never debunked by anyone let alone DiEuginio. Maybe you should actually read the Tobin report. The Tobin report is actually a waste of time and proved nothing. Why are all of your ideas nothing but an outgrowth of someone else’s opinion? Maybe that is why you are unable to sort this issue out, you do not think for yourself.

You answered your own questions about the chrome and window damage and what happened to the fragments. Some remained in the car, some did not but they obviously went forward because the lone shot was from behind. Maybe you should explain what you think should have happened with the fragments. You do understand they are just fragments splintered off a bullet? Your shot from the front looks to be impossible with the fragments hitting in front of JFK. I suppose that would explain your reluctance to fully explain your theory. 

--------------------------

MTG--”Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?"


I have read a few of his ramblings. I will not waste 1 more second of my time reading about something DiEugenio thinks. If it so important for you to repeat what he vomits out of his mouth feel free to quote him. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to verbalize that nonsense.
 

MTG--”Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show the entire brain missing virtually no tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?”

Once again you are going on about how much of the brain is missing. Why is that such a focal point? Everyone knows what happened to it. Do you actually think they substituted another brain to confuse you and then for what reason? Frame Z313 says it all does it not?
-----------------------------------------------

MTG--”A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.”
 


You really need to have a picture drawing of why there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome damage than the trajectory for the shot that hit JFK? They are at least 10 feet apart.

Why did he state it? The fragments possibly could have followed the same trajectory, but they didn’t, and he is just stating that fact. Their dispersion was random not necessarily linear. Actually, why do you need this explained for you to understand. There is 10 to 15 feet difference in impact points. It can only be two different trajectories.
-----------------
Good luck with the mysterious two bullet fragments that aren’t really bullet fragments but were supposedly deposited by a ricochet from a shot that never happened. The experts obviously had a hard time explaining it in the context that the fragments came from a bullet when in reality they did not. Sorry but the hard cold reality of it is they hold no significance.

 

 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 06, 2024, 01:07:02 PM
Any chance you will ever spell what you believe took place on the head shot? It is extremely hard to grasp the idea here when you are all over the board about what took place. Two shooters then not two shooters, Frangible bullets then not frangible bullets, a shot from behind and the front and then not a shot from the front, two entrance wounds and then not two entrance wounds.

The problem is that you either lack the mental capacity to understand plain English or you are dishonestly and embarrassingly ignoring my plain English because you have no credible answer for my arguments.

When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?

I guess your two shooters model is dead in the water now? It appears reality seems to be creeping into your theory. It appears you have decided that the WC assessment of the head shot near the EOP is better than the HSCA’s cowlick sight. If you no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets is part of your theory, this is progress. Welcome to the reality that Oswald did it alone.

Translation: You can't explain the compelling evidence against the cowlick site and for the EOP site. You prefer not to address the point that your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has repudiated the cowlick site, nor do you prefer to deal with his reasons for doing so.

You can't be so mentally challenged as to actually believe that I "no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets [sic]." Do you just hope that no one will read my replies and will not see that you either must be borderline retarded or are lying through your teeth to be making such a claim?

Again, when have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?

And when have I even implied that frangible ammo was not involved? I've repeatedly discussed the evidence that the frontal headshot bullet was a frangible bullet. See, for example, my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which I have cited many times in this forum:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view)

MTG __”Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:”

The NAA was never debunked by anyone let alone DiEuginio. Maybe you should actually read the Tobin report. The Tobin report is actually a waste of time and proved nothing. Why are all of your ideas nothing but an outgrowth of someone else’s opinion? Maybe that is why you are unable to sort this issue out, you do not think for yourself.

If you actually believe this, then you can't read, assuming you actually read "the Tobin report"--i.e., the Spiegelman-Tobin-James study. Their study proved that the bullet fragments could have come from three or more and as many as five separate bullets, and they found several serious errors in Guinn's assumptions. How did you miss this central finding? Veteran journalist John Solomon, whose article on the study I cited and linked in my previous reply to you, did not miss it:

----------------------------------------
They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines))
----------------------------------------

Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.

You answered your own questions about the chrome and window damage and what happened to the fragments. Some remained in the car, some did not but they obviously went forward because the lone shot was from behind. Maybe you should explain what you think should have happened with the fragments. You do understand they are just fragments splintered off a bullet? Your shot from the front looks to be impossible with the fragments hitting in front of JFK. I suppose that would explain your reluctance to fully explain your theory.

Translation: You're going to keep ducking the question of how the fragment that dented the back of the rearview mirror could have been either of the fragments that were found in the front of the limo. You're going to keep ducking the problem posed by the chrome dent. Again, why do you suppose that Rowley lied about the chrome dent and claimed it was made before the assassination during "routine maintenance"? Why? Why do you suppose the WC pretended there was doubt about when the chrome dent occurred? Why would they have lied about this if it posed no problem?

You see, I'm still trying to get you to explain your theory about the chrome damage, the window damage, and the rearview mirror damage. So far, your "theory" is nothing but your blind acceptance of what the WC claimed about the damage and the fragments, with no attempt on your part to explain the problems with the WC's scenario for the damage and the fragments.

The WC did not even mention the damage to the back of the rearview mirror, much less try to explain it. Why do you suppose that was?

MTG--”Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?"

I have read a few of his ramblings. I will not waste 1 more second of my time reading about something DiEugenio thinks. If it so important for you to repeat what he vomits out of his mouth feel free to quote him. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to verbalize that nonsense.

Translation: You're still refusing to prove your claim that DiEugenio in any way misrepresents the Randich-Grant NAA study.

Do you realize that after the Randich-Grant study was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, even G. Robert Blakey, who had ardently defended and cited Guinn's NAA research for the HSCA, concluded that the Guinn's NAA research was "junk science"?

Have you read the Randich-Grant study, "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives"? Are you aware that it proves that, contrary to what Guinn claimed, WCC MC lead does not "differ sharply" from typical bullet leads. Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn supported his bogus claim by comparing WCC MC lead to the lead from unjacketed handgun rounds? Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn's sampling number was far too small to justify his sweeping assertion about the fragments and WCC MC ammo?

Allow me to quote from the Journal of Forensic Sciences abstract of the Randich-Grant study:

----------------------------------------
Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x))
----------------------------------------

Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.

MTG--”Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show the entire brain missing virtually no tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?”

Once again you are going on about how much of the brain is missing. Why is that such a focal point? Everyone knows what happened to it. Do you actually think they substituted another brain to confuse you and then for what reason? Frame Z313 says it all does it not?

Vincent Bugliosi is spinning in his grave! Ignoring the skull x-rays, Bugliosi gleefully pointed out that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue, and he cited this fact as his basis for rejecting all the accounts of the eyewitnesses who reported that a large portion of JFK's brain was missing. 

However, as I've noted previously, a number of medical experts, from Dr. Hodges to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Chesser, have observed that the autopsy skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this with OD measurements.

Let me try to put this in grade-school terms: Suppose you had a set of photos and a set of x-rays that supposedly showed the same injured hand. Suppose that the photos showed two broken fingers but showed the fingers otherwise intact except for a small cut with a small amount of skin missing. But, suppose that the x-rays showed an entire finger missing. Would anyone in their right mind accept the claim that the photos and the x-rays showed the same hand? 

MTG--”A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.”

You really need to have a picture drawing of why there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome damage than the trajectory for the shot that hit JFK? They are at least 10 feet apart.

Why did he state it? The fragments possibly could have followed the same trajectory, but they didn’t, and he is just stating that fact. Their dispersion was random not necessarily linear. Actually, why do you need this explained for you to understand. There is 10 to 15 feet difference in impact points. It can only be two different trajectories.

HUH? I guess you forgot, or were hoping that I would forget, that Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the headshot trajectory. He admitted this after being specifically asked about it, remember? He didn't use your silly argument that we should not expect fragment damage and the headshot trajectory to align.

Shall we apply your silly argument to the conflicting theories of Moore, Posner, and Holland regarding the fragment that hit the Tague curb?

Good luck with the mysterious two bullet fragments that aren’t really bullet fragments but were supposedly deposited by a ricochet from a shot that never happened. The experts obviously had a hard time explaining it in the context that the fragments came from a bullet when in reality they did not. Sorry but the hard cold reality of it is they hold no significance.

You are ducking and dodging so much that you've ended up in La La Land. Let's start with the fact that every expert who has examined the skull x-rays has noted that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the back of the head in the same vertical position as the 6.5 mm object. It is within the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Even Sturdivan has acknowledged this fact. One problem posed by this small fragment, of course, is that it cannot be the lateral view, or the partner image, of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-rays. Nobody but nobody denies that this small bullet fragment is within the AP x-ray's image of the 6.5 mm object. Nobody.

Then, let's graduate to the fact that HSCA radiology consultant Dr. G. M. McDonnel detected an even smaller back-of-head fragment between the galea and the outer table, 1 cm below the cowlick site, and slightly to the left of the small fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object. No expert has denied the existence of the McDonnel fragment. 

Next, let's graduate to the fact that Dr. Mantik has confirmed the existence of both of these fragments with multiple OD measurements. Using high magnification, he was even able to determine the size of the small back-of-head fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object (6.3 x 2.5 mm).

A "ricochet from a shot that never happened"? Uh, even Gerald Posner agrees that the five witnesses who described seeing a bullet strike the pavement near the limo are credible.

The problem is that since you are chained down by the lone-gunman theory, you can't offer a credible explanation for the pavement strike. Posner tries to explain it with his whacky tree-limb-collision theory where an FMJ bullet supposedly split apart after hitting one of the oak tree's branches and then sent one fragment to strike the pavement and another fragment to strike the Tague curb over 400 feet away with enough force to send a chip of concrete streaking toward Tague.

There's really no "mystery" and really nothing "mysterious" about the two back-of-head fragments, unless one is chained down by the absurd lone-gunman theory and only has three shots to account for every wound, every fragment, every pavement strike, every curb strike, and every other miss (the Aldredge bullet strike, the Foster-Walthers bullet strike, the deformed bullet found in the limo and seen by Dr. James Young, etc.).

We've known for years that even the Clark Panel privately believed that the back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays was a ricochet fragment.

Finally, I notice that you ignored the issues of the high fragment trail and the cortical and subcortical damage. Again, are you ever going to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? And are you ever going to explain how a single bullet could have caused two different and unconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the cortical damage high in the brain and the subcortical damage much lower in the brain?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 06, 2024, 04:08:08 PM
The problem is that you either lack the mental capacity to understand plain English or you are dishonestly and embarrassingly ignoring my plain English because you have no credible answer for my arguments.

When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?

Translation: You can't explain the compelling evidence against the cowlick site and for the EOP site. You prefer not to address the point that your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has repudiated the cowlick site, nor do you prefer to deal with his reasons for doing so.

You can't be so mentally challenged as to actually believe that I "no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets [sic]." Do you just hope that no one will read my replies and will not see that you either must be borderline retarded or are lying through your teeth to be making such a claim?

Again, when have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?

And when have I even implied that frangible ammo was not involved? I've repeatedly discussed the evidence that the frontal headshot bullet was a frangible bullet. See, for example, my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which I have cited many times in this forum:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view)

If you actually believe this, then you can't read, assuming you actually read "the Tobin report"--i.e., the Spiegelman-Tobin-James study. Their study proved that the bullet fragments could have come from three or more and as many as five separate bullets, and they found several serious errors in Guinn's assumptions. How did you miss this central finding? Veteran journalist John Solomon, whose article on the study I cited and linked in my previous reply to you, did not miss it:

----------------------------------------
They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines))
----------------------------------------

Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.

Translation: You're going to keep ducking the question of how the fragment that dented the back of the rearview mirror could have been either of the fragments that were found in the front of the limo. You're going to keep ducking the problem posed by the chrome dent. Again, why do you suppose that Rowley lied about the chrome dent and claimed it was made before the assassination during "routine maintenance"? Why? Why do you suppose the WC pretended there was doubt about when the chrome dent occurred? Why would they have lied about this if it posed no problem?

You see, I'm still trying to get you to explain your theory about the chrome damage, the window damage, and the rearview mirror damage. So far, your "theory" is nothing but your blind acceptance of what the WC claimed about the damage and the fragments, with no attempt on your part to explain the problems with the WC's scenario for the damage and the fragments.

The WC did not even mention the damage to the back of the rearview mirror, much less try to explain it. Why do you suppose that was?

Translation: You're still refusing to prove your claim that DiEugenio in any way misrepresents the Randich-Grant NAA study.

Do you realize that after the Randich-Grant study was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, even G. Robert Blakey, who had ardently defended and cited Guinn's NAA research for the HSCA, concluded that the Guinn's NAA research was "junk science"?

Have you read the Randich-Grant study, "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives"? Are you aware that it proves that, contrary to what Guinn claimed, WCC MC lead does not "differ sharply" from typical bullet leads. Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn supported his bogus claim by comparing WCC MC lead to the lead from unjacketed handgun rounds? Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn's sampling number was far too small to justify his sweeping assertion about the fragments and WCC MC ammo?

Allow me to quote from the Journal of Forensic Sciences abstract of the Randich-Grant study:

----------------------------------------
Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x))
----------------------------------------

Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.

Vincent Bugliosi is spinning in his grave! Ignoring the skull x-rays, Bugliosi gleefully pointed out that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue, and he cited this fact as his basis for rejecting all the accounts of the eyewitnesses who reported that a large portion of JFK's brain was missing. 

However, as I've noted previously, a number of medical experts, from Dr. Hodges to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Chesser, have observed that the autopsy skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this with OD measurements.

Let me try to put this in grade-school terms: Suppose you had a set of photos and a set of x-rays that supposedly showed the same injured hand. Suppose that the photos showed two broken fingers but showed the fingers otherwise intact except for a small cut with a small amount of skin missing. But, suppose that the x-rays showed an entire finger missing. Would anyone in their right mind accept the claim that the photos and the x-rays showed the same hand? 

HUH? I guess you forgot, or were hoping that I would forget, that Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the headshot trajectory. He admitted this after being specifically asked about it, remember? He didn't use your silly argument that we should not expect fragment damage and the headshot trajectory to align.

Shall we apply your silly argument to the conflicting theories of Moore, Posner, and Holland regarding the fragment that hit the Tague curb?

You are ducking and dodging so much that you've ended up in La La Land. Let's start with the fact that every expert who has examined the skull x-rays has noted that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the back of the head in the same vertical position as the 6.5 mm object. It is within the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Even Sturdivan has acknowledged this fact. One problem posed by this small fragment, of course, is that it cannot be the lateral view, or the partner image, of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-rays. Nobody but nobody denies that this small bullet fragment is within the AP x-ray's image of the 6.5 mm object. Nobody.

Then, let's graduate to the fact that HSCA radiology consultant Dr. G. M. McDonnel detected an even smaller back-of-head fragment between the galea and the outer table, 1 cm below the cowlick site, and slightly to the left of the small fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object. No expert has denied the existence of the McDonnel fragment. 

Next, let's graduate to the fact that Dr. Mantik has confirmed the existence of both of these fragments with multiple OD measurements. Using high magnification, he was even able to determine the size of the small back-of-head fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object (6.3 x 2.5 mm).

A "ricochet from a shot that never happened"? Uh, even Gerald Posner agrees that the five witnesses who described seeing a bullet strike the pavement near the limo are credible.

The problem is that since you are chained down by the lone-gunman theory, you can't offer a credible explanation for the pavement strike. Posner tries to explain it with his whacky tree-limb-collision theory where an FMJ bullet supposedly split apart after hitting one of the oak tree's branches and then sent one fragment to strike the pavement and another fragment to strike the Tague curb over 400 feet away with enough force to send a chip of concrete streaking toward Tague.

There's really no "mystery" and really nothing "mysterious" about the two back-of-head fragments, unless one is chained down by the absurd lone-gunman theory and only has three shots to account for every wound, every fragment, every pavement strike, every curb strike, and every other miss (the Aldredge bullet strike, the Foster-Walthers bullet strike, the deformed bullet found in the limo and seen by Dr. James Young, etc.).

We've known for years that even the Clark Panel privately believed that the back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays was a ricochet fragment.

Finally, I notice that you ignored the issues of the high fragment trail and the cortical and subcortical damage. Again, are you ever going to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? And are you ever going to explain how a single bullet could have caused two different and unconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the cortical damage high in the brain and the subcortical damage much lower in the brain?

You are trying to have it both ways.

MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”

MTG-” When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?”

 
How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds. Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear. The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.

I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.
 
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 07, 2024, 07:43:08 PM
Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, noting that the entry wound was near the hairline:

Quote
KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here.
SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

During his HSCA interview, Kellerman drew a diagram that the put the entry wound about 2 inches below the exit wound and well to the left of the right ear (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).

Kellerman also saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. In the segment preceding the above-quoted testimony, Kellerman said the large wound was in the rear portion of the head, to the left of the right ear:

Quote
Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right
in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81)

In his WC testimony, Kellerman also noted that he told Agent Clint Hill that he wanted him to see the wounds and that he "pointed out the wounds to Hill" (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 7). This is noteworthy because in his 11/30/63 report, Agent Hill confirmed this and twice noted that the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head:

Quote
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely; Part of his brain was gone. . . . 
         
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745)

So Hill saw the same wound that he observed for several minutes en route to Parkland that he saw in the Bethesda morgue when he was asked to view JFK's wounds, and that wound was in the right-rear part of the skull. 

Kellerman's HSCA diagram also showed a large wound in the back of the head (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 08, 2024, 07:32:10 PM
You are trying to have it both ways.

MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”

MTG-” When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?”

Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
 
How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds.

Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.

Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds.

Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.

You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.

JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear.

Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).

And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).

What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.

The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.

LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.

I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.

If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 09, 2024, 03:18:52 AM
Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
 
Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.

Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.

You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.

Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).

And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).

What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.

LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.

If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.

Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 09, 2024, 01:44:15 PM
Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.

How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?

How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?

How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?

How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?

How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)

How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?

Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?

Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)

Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).

Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?

How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 09, 2024, 10:15:28 PM
How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?

How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?

How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?

How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?

How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)

How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?

Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?

Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)

Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).

Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?

How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?

(https://i.postimg.cc/nhdGR8wN/zap-314-315-a.gif)

1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd9xyFhr/tink.gif)

2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?

(https://i.postimg.cc/JzgBHRF7/first-day-dealey-polaza-eyewitnesses.gif)

3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv6YFCSx/JFK-head-mist.gif)

4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.

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

The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty

@2:50

5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kjz0vZV7/Jet-Effect-Factor-Fiction.gif)

6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.

I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4H2N75h/zapz313in-out1-zpsfe80c426.gif)

As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.

(https://i.postimg.cc/V6F5Yt0T/Z313-ghost-sprocket.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqpWTBf9/Z212-Z214-sprocket-aperture.jpg)

The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 15, 2024, 08:00:34 PM
1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?

Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.

When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?

1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!

Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.

2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?

LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?

When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?

3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.

That's a joke, right?

4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.

Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?

If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?

You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.

The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty

Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.

Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)

5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.

More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.

6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.

I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.

As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.

The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm JohnM

Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.

Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:

------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.

Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.

But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)

If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.

1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.

2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.

3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.

4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.

5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)

Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.

For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------

It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 15, 2024, 09:25:37 PM
Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.

When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?

Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.

LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?

When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?

That's a joke, right?

Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?

If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?

You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.

Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.

Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)

More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.

Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.

Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:

------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.

Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.

But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)

If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.

1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.

2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.

3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.

4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.

5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)

Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.

For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------

It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?

(https://i.postimg.cc/hPY1JXF2/CROWD-LAUGHING-HYSTERICALLY-AT-GRIFFITH.gif)

You can't be serious?

I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!

Quote
It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.

Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....

(https://i.postimg.cc/W32ngH6y/Brehm-Zapruder.gif)

Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.

(https://i.postimg.cc/fbt20LdJ/z383-n279.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxKbGKCr/Hill-Jackie-on-Limo-a.jpg)

Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!

(https://i.postimg.cc/90K0CqMY/Clint-Hill-grabbin-Jackie-Z383-to-Z413.gif)

Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nj3q7wPM/Malcom-Left-leg-pointing-forward-on-right-leg.jpg)

Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder! Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/mrt12664/Zapruder-stabilized-a.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 17, 2024, 05:47:30 PM
You can't be serious?

Do you think people won't notice that you have once again avoided dealing with contrary evidence and are simply repeating arguments that I've answered several times in detail?

I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!

Your graphics are fraudulent and are even contradicted by some of your own side's experts, as I've noted before.

And, who, pray tell, are the "unqualified Conspiracy Kooks"? I've cited the late Dr. Art Snyder, who held a doctorate in physics and worked as a physicist at Stanford University. I've cited Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics and is a former professor of physics at the University of Michigan, in addition to being a board-certified and peer-review-published radiation oncologist. I've cited the late Dr. Roderick Ryan, who worked as a photography and film scientist with Kodak, who held a doctorate in cinema and comms from USC, who was a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and who was a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films.

You sound like a Flat Earther who's dismissing the observations of scientists by calling the scientists "unqualified Round Earth Kooks."

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.

Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.

Uh, is this supposed to be your answer to Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film? Is this supposed to be your answer to the several paragraphs that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's paper? Leaving aside the fact that your qualifications are nothing compared to Dr. Mantik's qualifications, if Dr. Mantik's scientific observations about impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film are "non-supported gibberish," you should have no problem refuting them. For your convenience, here, again, is the link to his 42-page study on alteration:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf  (https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf)

You're full of bluff and bluster. You never back up your polemic with valid sources or facts. You just keep repeating your arguments and reposting bogus, deceptive graphics.

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.

Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....

LOL! How do you move with a "natural fluid motion" from where Brehm Jr. starts to where he ends up in no more than 0.61 seconds?! You are a master at missing--or avoiding--the point. The whole point is that you can't move between those two locations in that amount of time in a "natural fluid motion." My son Jacob only came somewhat close to matching Brehm Jr.'s time by practically jumping into the required spot, but then he had to take time to steady himself.

And I take it that you are never going to do your own reenactment to prove that any kid that age could perform that movement in barely half a second, right? I mean, if there's nothing unusual about the speed of the movement, you should be anxious and willing to prove this with a reenactment. We both know that you can't. We both know that that's why you won't do a reenactment.

Would you like my son Jacob's phone number? He played the kid in my reenactment (he was in his teens at the time). You can talk to him and ask him anything you want about my reenactment. Send me a private message and I'll give you his email address and phone number.

Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.

Oh, hogwash. Your denial of observable reality is astounding. Anyone can look at the two frames and see that the camera angles are not drastically different. That's why both frames show the respective rear tires, the respective sides of the rear bumper, and the respective sides of Jackie and Agent Hill. This would not be the case if the camera angles were markedly different. I've pointed out this fact before, and you just keep ignoring it. If the camera angles were drastically different, we would not see the respective sides of these objects.

Again, you can delude yourself into imagining that the obvious differences in the locations and positions of Jackie's and Hill's heads and bodies in the two frames are an optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but anyone with two working eyes can see that this is not the case. You just can't face this fact because admitting it would mean admitting that the Zapruder film has been altered.

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.

Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!

This is juvenile pettiness. You know I was referring to the sequence before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat, as I immediately clarified once I realized I had misspoken. Are you really so immature and dense as to think that anyone is going to believe that I did not know that after Z380 Hill helps Jackie get back into her seat? Really?

Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.

HUH? Can you read? How many times have I explained that in Z353 Summers' left leg is splayed forward and that his left foot is clearly extended beyond his right foot? That's the whole point, because 56 thousandths of a second later, or just 1/18th/second later, his left foreleg is bent noticeably backward and his left foot is now directly above his right foot! Moreover, by Z356, just 1/6th/second later at Z33, his legs, arms, and feet are in an obviously different position than they are in Z353.

This is at least the third time you have ducked and dodged these self-evident, readily observable facts. I mean, sheesh, do you somehow think that people won't notice your bald-faced evasion and dissembling on this issue?

Folks, to get an idea of John Mytton's evasion and misrepresentation on this issue, read my segment on Summers' movements in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link).

Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder!

LOL! I ask you, again: If your slowdown is "very clear," how did Dr. Alvarez miss it?! How did Dr. Alvarez, not to mention every other expert who has examined the film, miss your "dramatic" slowdown?! The only slowdown he detected, after many hours of frame-by-frame analysis, is the Z295-304 slowdown, a slowdown (1) that no one else had detected until then and (2) that is virtually unnoticeable when you watch the film at normal speed. It is beyond silly to argue that this half-second slowdown is the stop or marked slowdown that dozens of witnesses described seeing. 

You are either deluding yourself or you have terrible eyesight. Your slowdown GIF is naked fraud and exposes you as a charlatan or as a person with bad eyesight.

BTW, when are you going to deal with the fact that the Muchmore film shows the limo's brake lights on for nine frames? Yet, in the Zapruder film the limo appears to move at a steady speed until after Z314, and after Z314 the limo speeds up.

Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!

You're again acting like a juvenile. As I've pointed out to you several times now, my article on alteration never just says "slowdown" but "marked slowdown," "rapid slowdown," "slowed markedly," and "slowed down markedly," in addition to "stop" and "stopped," e.g., "the car stopped or markedly slowed" (p. 1) and "Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the current Zapruder film" (p. 2).

Do you just not understand the difference between "slowdown" and "marked slowdown/rapid slowdown"? Do you just not understand the difference between "the car slowed down" and "the car markedly/rapidly slowed down"? Is your English so bad that you don't understand the difference between the generic term "slowdown" and the more specific term "marked/rapid slowdown"?

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 18, 2024, 06:14:56 PM
You never hear WC apologists talk about the fact that Dr. Russell Morgan, one of the most eminent radiologists in his day and the only radiologist on the four-member Clark Panel, expressed doubts about the kind of ammo that hit JFK's head and said that the bullet may have been a dumdum bullet (aka hollow-point bullet). In September 1977, Morgan said,

Quote
The fragmentation in the slide [the x-ray slide] was so severe that one had to wonder if it was a so-called dum-dum bullet [hollow-point bullet] as opposed to the kind which was found on the floor [on the floor of JFK's limo]. (Lansing State Journal, 16 September 1977, p. 10, see https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/reviewing-the-autopsy-x-rays/ (https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/reviewing-the-autopsy-x-rays/), starting at 22:49)


Dr. Morgan added that he would be willing to participate in the HSCA investigation.

As many scholars have noted, not one of the FMJ bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests broke into dozens of fragments. Similarly, not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test broke into numerous fragments. FMJ bullets fired from medium-velocity or low-velocity rifles, such as the alleged murder weapon, will rarely if ever break into numerous fragments (see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing)).

FYI, Dr. Morgan was responsible for the most important advances in the 20th century in the quality, safety and application of x-ray technology. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health website notes that Dr. Morgan

Quote
. . . invented an exposure meter that reduced the need for repeated x-rays, developed an automatic timer to shut off x-ray exposure the moment the film had been properly exposed, and significantly improved picture quality so that fewer x-rays were required of patients. His landmark studies on image formation culminated in such technological triumphs as incorporating television monitors, physiologic optics, and computer analysis in radiologic science. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/about/history/heroes-of-public-health/russell-e-morgan-md (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/about/history/heroes-of-public-health/russell-e-morgan-md))
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2024, 02:06:38 AM
You never hear WC apologists talk about the fact that Dr. Russell Morgan, one of the most eminent radiologists in his day and the only radiologist on the four-member Clark Panel, expressed doubts about the kind of ammo that hit JFK's head and said that the bullet may have been a dumdum bullet (aka hollow-point bullet). In September 1977, Morgan said,
 

Dr. Morgan added that he would be willing to participate in the HSCA investigation.

As many scholars have noted, not one of the FMJ bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests broke into dozens of fragments. Similarly, not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test broke into numerous fragments. FMJ bullets fired from medium-velocity or low-velocity rifles, such as the alleged murder weapon, will rarely if ever break into numerous fragments (see my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing)).

FYI, Dr. Morgan was responsible for the most important advances in the 20th century in the quality, safety and application of x-ray technology. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health website notes that Dr. Morgan

Uh-oh, here we go again.

Like your bizarre responses above, in regards to Zapruder alteration, where you keep using people who are completely unqualified to discuss film alteration, here you quote a guy who seems to be good at taking X-Rays(Big Deal) and he's obviously discussing a topic which is way beyond his paygrade, "Wound Ballistics" and then you disturbingly wonder why he's rarely discussed, well, Duh!

Yet, you are the one who constantly ignores Experts who are actually qualified and are real life Scholars in their chosen fields? Go figure??

Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who you like to dismiss, is the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch and performed practical recreations of Kennedy's head wound, why don't you quote this guy? Oh that's right you have a vested interest in supporting anything but.

Dr. Alfred G. Olivier while using human skulls recreated the shot into the back of Kennedy's head and guess what "Einstein", the bullet separated into two pieces and closely resembled the recovered bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo. I bet your guy who was seemingly good at taking X-Rays didn't do this experiment but instead postulated his dumb dumdum bullet theory without considering the entirety of the physical evidence.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.


1. The 2 larger test bullet fragments recovered by Dr. Oliver.

(https://i.postimg.cc/gkJ9BSxN/ce857-ce858-test-carcano-bullets.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nr3yh7P4/ce-858-carcano-bullet-in-2-fragments.jpg)

2. The 2 larger bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's Limo

(https://i.postimg.cc/4N5dpFrP/ce567-ce569.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/K88YfDb2/JFK-3-D-Artifacts-Wide-64.gif)

And contrary to the belief of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, Dr. Oliver showed that the bullet after penetrating a human skull broke up into a shower of smaller lead fragments.

Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
-------snip------
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.


(https://i.postimg.cc/FH5ZJ1X3/ce-859-lead-fragments.jpg)

And just to show you how inadequate your research really is, here's Dr. John Lattimer who also did the same experiment and lo and behold his Carcano Bullet also broke up into two larger fragments.

(https://i.postimg.cc/13BvhPbF/lattimerfragments-zps338a33c1.gif)

So Griffith, instead of sweeping the very depths of the sewers in your search for unqualified anybody's that dispute the official findings of the many qualified Experts of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and etc. etc., perhaps you better start embracing these fine upstanding Pillars of Society who have the words TRUTH and Justice emblazoned as their middle names!

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2024, 03:09:59 AM

HUH? Can you read? How many times have I explained that in Z353 Summers' left leg is splayed forward and that his left foot is clearly extended beyond his right foot? That's the whole point, because 56 thousandths of a second later, or just 1/18th/second later, his left foreleg is bent noticeably backward and his left foot is now directly above his right foot! Moreover, by Z356, just 1/6th/second later at Z33, his legs, arms, and feet are in an obviously different position than they are in Z353.

This is at least the third time you have ducked and dodged these self-evident, readily observable facts. I mean, sheesh, do you somehow think that people won't notice your bald-faced evasion and dissembling on this issue?

Folks, to get an idea of John Mytton's evasion and misrepresentation on this issue, read my segment on Summers' movements in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link).


Ffs, just how many time are you going to misrepresent my graphics, the frame that YOU claim is Summers' left leg being "bent noticeably backward" is in fact his left leg splayed forward, it's called perspective, and here's frame Z357 showing exactly what I've been saying, his left leg is pointing towards the camera and his left shoe is partially obscuring his right shin.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nj3q7wPM/Malcom-Left-leg-pointing-forward-on-right-leg.jpg)

At NO point that Summers' is being seen in Zapruder, has Summers left leg "bent noticeably backward".
I made this stabilized GIF which is technically way beyond what you can produce or even understand, clearly shows at all times Summers' left leg always pointing towards Zapruder's camera and his legs, arms, and feet are in different positions because he's falling to the ground, your continued amateur efforts to analyze absolutely anything in the visual record constantly defies belief!
Btw if you look closely at the last frame before Summers' meets the socket area, after his frontal splaying left leg is being brought towards his body, the resulting momentum lifts his left knee and his his lower left leg springs slightly forward and specifically his left shoe is kicking forward. Which is the last nail in the coffin and only further destroys your absurd original observation. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen and Girls and Boys, but here with this soul destroying fact, I rest my case.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vDRFx9sC/Summers-stabilized.gif)

P.S. if as you claim, this is yet another film segment that has had frames removed, how come Altgen's backwards walk and the constantly moving Limo show no signs of being altered? In other words how did they specifically isolate Summers' movement and most importantly why would the evil overseeing "they" feel the need to separate Summer's natural appearing movements from events occurring all around him?

P.S.S. And one last consideration to ponder, some of the exact same Summers' frames that we have now, were published in LIFE magazine a week later and allowing for acquiring, organizing, printing and distribution only leaves a precious few days for your alteration to occur, so how long do you honestly believe that it took for this massive deception to take place?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvtQSYf9/life-nov-29-1963-2-copy.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/MGwkM0rr/Zap-life-frame-indicator.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 19, 2024, 05:03:33 PM
Uh-oh, here we go again.

Like your bizarre responses above, in regards to Zapruder alteration, where you keep using people who are completely unqualified to discuss film alteration, here you quote a guy who seems to be good at taking X-Rays(Big Deal) and he's obviously discussing a topic which is way beyond his paygrade, "Wound Ballistics" and then you disturbingly wonder why he's rarely discussed, well, Duh!

Yet, you are the one who constantly ignores Experts who are actually qualified and are real life Scholars in their chosen fields? Go figure??

Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who you like to dismiss, is the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch and performed practical recreations of Kennedy's head wound, why don't you quote this guy? Oh that's right you have a vested interest in supporting anything but.

Dr. Alfred G. Olivier while using human skulls recreated the shot into the back of Kennedy's head and guess what "Einstein", the bullet separated into two pieces and closely resembled the recovered bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo. I bet your guy who was seemingly good at taking X-Rays didn't do this experiment but instead postulated his dumb dumdum bullet theory without considering the entirety of the physical evidence.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.


1. The 2 larger test bullet fragments recovered by Dr. Oliver.

2. The 2 larger bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's Limo

And contrary to the belief of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, Dr. Oliver showed that the bullet after penetrating a human skull broke up into a shower of smaller lead fragments.

Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
-------snip------
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.


And just to show you how inadequate your research really is, here's Dr. John Lattimer who also did the same experiment and lo and behold his Carcano Bullet also broke up into two larger fragments.

So Griffith, instead of sweeping the very depths of the sewers in your search for unqualified anybody's that dispute the official findings of the many qualified Experts of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and etc. etc., perhaps you better start embracing these fine upstanding Pillars of Society who have the words TRUTH and Justice emblazoned as their middle names! JohnM

Howling Betsy!!!

Let's start with your comment that in Dr. Lattimer's test, one of the FMJ bullets broke up into "two larger fragments." I again ask, Can you read? How does this comment address the fact that the x-rays of the skulls from Lattimer's test show no fragments in the skulls? Did you not notice that Lattimer specified that the two fragments that you mention were recovered from outside the skull ("after passing through a skull")?! Do you even read the text in the images that you post before you post them?

I notice that you snipped and ignored the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test broke up into numerous fragments. I might add, as I discuss in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," that the FMJ bullets in the HSCA's test likewise failed to behave like the ammo that hit JFK in the head. Side-view photos of the HSCA gelatin blocks showed that all of the FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, drastically different from the brain damage that JFK suffered. And I would again note that you still have not explained the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited two bullet fragments on or above the outer table when penetrating a skull.

You realize that Dr. Russell Morgan was a member of the Clark Panel and that he was regarded as one of the best radiologists in the world at the time, right? He was the only radiologist on the panel. But, nah, according to you he had no business talking about what the x-rays showed about the kind of ammo that was used!

As for Dr. Olivier's testimony and his exhibits, do you have any clue how many scholars have examined Olivier's testimony and CE 857 and CE 859 and have noted the glaring holes in his claims? Any clue? And you didn't bother to read my linked article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" before you posted this howling nonsense, did you?

Did you ever ask yourself why Olivier showed fragments from only one of the 10 FMJ test shots into skulls? Now why do you suppose that was? What about the fragments from the FMJ bullets fired into the nine other skulls? Hey?

Did you notice that they had to go "off the record" after Specter asked Olivier if all the fragments in CE 859 were in CE 857 and after Olivier said they were "supposed to be"? Let's read:

---------------------------------------------
Mr. Specter. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. Olivier. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
(Discussion off the record.)
(5 H 88)
---------------------------------------------

Now, gee, why did they have to go off the record after Olivier gave that answer? Humm? Because there's an obvious difference between the number of fragments seen in CE 857 and the number seen in CE 859? CE 859 shows more fragments than are seen in CE 857.

Yet, even CE 859 shows at least 40% fewer fragments than the autopsy skull x-rays show. The skull x-rays show about 40 tiny fragments just in the right frontal region alone--the "snowstorm" of tiny metal fragments that are seen on the unenhanced skull x-rays. To the viewer's left of this fragment cloud we see a number of other fragments that are larger in size than the cloud fragments and that extend upward to a point at least 1 inch from the cowlick site. Not one of the bullets in Olivier's test deposited a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments in the right frontal region and then a trail of fragments that ranged upward from that fragment cloud. Not a single one.

In addition, there are at least two fragments on the back of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, one in the outer table and another between the galea and the outer table. Not a single one of the bullets in the WC's test deposited fragments on or above the outer table. Not a single one.

Just a reminder: I notice that you snipped and ignored the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test broke up into numerous fragments. I might add, as I discuss in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," that the FMJ bullets in the HSCA's test likewise failed to behave like the ammo that hit JFK in the head. Side-view photos of the HSCA gelatin blocks showed that all of the FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, drastically different from the brain damage that JFK suffered. And I would again note that you still have not explained the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited two bullet fragments on or above the outer table when penetrating a skull.

As many scholars have noted, Olivier misrepresented his own test data and failed to mention serious contradictions between the wounds in the test skulls and JFK's head wounds. Physicist Howard Roffman noted one of the contradictions:

---------------------------------------------
Ten skulls were fired upon with "Oswald's" rifle under conditions duplicating only those under which Oswald allegedly fired. Only one skull was subsequently shown to the Commission; the bullet that struck it "blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head wound of the President" (R87). This persuaded the "expert" to conclude--contrary to his beliefs nurtured by prior experience--"that the type of head wounds that the President received could be done by this type of bullet" (R87).

The pictures of this test exhibit printed by the Commission show a gelatin-filled skull with the bone of the entire right side missing (17H854). However, the gelatin underlying this missing bone is completely intact, so utterly undisturbed that it still bears the various minute impressions of the skull that once covered it. This gelatin was supposed to simulate the tissues within the skull (5H87). Yet those tissues, according to the autopsy report, were "lacerated," "disrupted," and "extensively lacerated" (16H981, 983). Obviously, even upon its entering the bony vault of the skull, the test bullet was not capable of producing the extensive damage attributed to it by the Commission. (Presumed Guilty, Associated University Press, 1975, pp. 112-113)
---------------------------------------------

Dr. Don Thomas, a former research scientist for the U.S. Government:

---------------------------------------------
The results also demonstrate another problematic aspect of both Lattimer's and Olivier's experimental results. Contrary to the statements of both men, neither set of experiments resulted in skull damage that resembled Kennedy's head wound. The top right side of Kennedy's cranium was burst open, but the President's face was intact. In Lattimer's and Olivier's skulls, parts of the face were destroyed (Fig. 10.3), which is only to be expected from bullets entering the back of the head. (Hear No Evil, MFF Press, 2010, p. 364)
---------------------------------------------

Just a reminder: I notice that you snipped and ignored the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test broke up into numerous fragments. I might add, as I discuss in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," that the FMJ bullets in the HSCA's test likewise failed to behave like the ammo that hit JFK in the head. Side-view photos of the HSCA gelatin blocks showed that all of the FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, drastically different from the brain damage that JFK suffered. And I would again note that you still have not explained the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited two bullet fragments on or above the outer table when penetrating a skull.

Finally, I see that you are still droning on with your denial of Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and with your self-evidently bogus claim that the stark contradictions between Jackie's and Hill's Nix-Zapruder positions and locations are merely an optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles.

Amazingly, you continue to ignore the plain language of my points about Summers' movements and to ignore the obvious differences between the positions of his left foreleg that occur in just 1/18th/second and the differences in the positions of his left foreleg, left arm, and upper body that occur in just 1/6th/second.

I'll address your drivel about the supposedly drastically different Nix and Zapruder camera angles by asking you a simple question: If the Nix and Zapruder camera angles are drastically different, how do you explain the fact that the Nix and Zapruder frames show the respective rear tires, the respective sides of the rear bumper, and the respective sides of Jackie and Agent Hill? How can this be if the camera angles are drastically different?
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Mitch Todd on February 02, 2024, 02:19:24 AM
Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:

That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.

Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.

I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.
What I said is exactly what Riley did, and it can be seen simply by inspecting his figure. Your appeals to the lambda's location are useless, since the lambda isn't visible in the TotH photos. Only the distance from the rear of the head to the wound is important here, because it's the only common reference point available in the photo.


Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.

Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos,
The "red spot" is concave. A spot of blood would not be. Also:

The BOH photos were shot to center on the "red spot."

There is a ruler placed right next to the "red spot."

The photos show that someone parted the hair away from the "red spot."

That is, everything about the BOH photos indicate that they were taken specifically to document the "red spot." They wouldn't have done that if it was just a "spot of blood."  I have the timeless reality captured in the photos themselves on my side. You only have the faded memories of a old man trying to remember something he saw 35 years before.   


as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.
It's that Rockefeller Commission report that you can't quote in context, innit? In the RC interviews and testimony, Hodges agreed with Spitz, who placed the wound high.


So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?
Dream on, Sunshine


Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.
In Finck's correspondence to Blumberg, he reiterates the autopsy report's measurements for the back wound, noting that those were his measurements. But when it came to the BOH wound, he notably omitted the autopsy report's description of the wound location, opting instead for much more generalized, non specific language. This should tell you that he either didn't agree with the location in the AR or he wasn't confident enough in his own observations to  be more specific. The autopsy report's own description of the wound location, 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP, should tell you right off the bat that they didn't actually bother to measure it's location, or make much note of it's position. Otherwise, the AR would be much more specific on that matter and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The Blumberg letters are important in that this is the only point where Finck does not have to defend the autopsy report in public, and he has the luxury of allowing himself to freely relate his experience.

You will, do doubt, bring up that Finck put the wound in what he called the "occipital bone" and the "occipital region." But "occiput" only means "the back part of the head or skull" (per Mirriam-Webster), and some point of "occipital bone" or "occipital region" may not actually lie within the bone called the occipital bone. You can, of course, claim that Finck would have seen the suture lines dividing the different cranial bones; however, the surface of the skull is covered by adhering soft tissue like the periosteum, the loose areolar tissue and the various interior membranes which obscure the exact surface of the bone and hide the sutures as any meaningful guidepost.


It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.
HB&F have been getting pelted hard from both sides of the aisle since the 60's, and definitely since the 70's, so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about here.


And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.
I never actually claimed that the entire skull was pulled apart, so I'm also not sure what you're talking about. I wonder if you know what you're talking about at this point.
 

Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts? That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.

The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.

Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage.
When M L Fackler was researching the effects of 5.56x45 bullets breaking up after impact, he found that the original M193 bullets created a temporary cavity about 20-25cm across and a permanent cavity about 15-20cm wide. An adult male cranium is about 14cm, max, inside-to-inside along the sagittal axis. An M193 bullet has about 1/3 the mass and 70% of the muzzle energy of a 6.5mm Carcano round. Areas of the brain not directly affected by the tearing in the creation of the main wound channel are still subject to being crushed, torqued, and smashed when they were hammered into the inside of the skull by intense cavitation forces, causing blunt force trauma, including lacerations. There should be no question, then, that a 6.5mm would cause damage many centimeters from the bullet path. Period.


Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:
----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.

The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .

However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.

First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .

An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
---------------------------------------

You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.
And Dr Riley's recognized expertise in gunshot wounds is.....?

Ditto with Mantik.


You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.

We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.
Do we actually "know" this? Last I checked, this is what Menninger said Donohue said that Fisher said it. Did Fisher really say that, or did Donohue/Menninger just hear what they wanted to hear?


Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:

---------------------------------------
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-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------

Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------
Since I haven't claimed that any bullet broke up into "circular slices," this must be another of your diversions into the realm of Beside the Point.


LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.

You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.
So, instead of actually bothering to come up with a single argument against what I proposed, you just hide behind flatulent dollops of empty attempts at ridicule. Also, there is no good reason to believe that the fragment penetrated into the inner table; from the x-rays we have, it could simply be lying against the outer table without having poked into it at all.


This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet I have no idea. No, I bet you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.

It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve. 
I didn't claim that any fragment was "deposited" in either the outer or inner tables. It's like you keep arguing in your head with some alternate version of yourself instead of dealing with what I've said.


MT: Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials?

HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.
That sentence is a great example of you begging the question. The rest of your reply is simply a lame attempt to avoid answering my question by changing the subject using as much whargrrrbl as you can muster.


I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential.
That's right. Boswell remembered something like that happening, but Humes and Finck didn't remember it that way. The rest is you trying to shove a proverbial square peg into a proverbial round hole, kinky lad you. For contemporaneous reference, The Sibert+O'Neill report, the autopsy report, and Finck's correspondence to Blumberg say that the late-arriving fragment completed the exit, not the entry (and put the entry at the rear of the cranium). BTW, you might want to consider that a bullet passing through the skull can result in partial cratering. Sometimes, you even get what's called a "keyhole", where there are two (roughly) half-craters, one facing inside and one facing outside. Each crater occupying it's own half of the circumference. And, again, Humes and Boswell had partially disassembled the remaining skull to remove the brain. Finck may not have seen the entire wound when it was pointed out to him.


This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
If it's clown material, then it should be right up your alley, Bozo.


No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?
The autopsy report really isn't very specific about the secondary characteristics shown in the x-rays, including the location of the minor fragments. I suspect that this is because Humes, Boswell and Finck no longer had access to the x-rays, and were relying on their memory, rather than some grand subversion. Their omission then becomes an empty canvas upon which the easily excitable can scrawl their own brightly-colored pictures in finger-paint.

Of these "dozen's of scholars" you mention, how many actually have any real demonstrated and accepted expertise in gunshot wounds? How many are simply medical dilettantes, swimming unsupervised well out of their own specialties? How many are just wild-eyed dorks who have a conclusion they don't know how to prove, and simple bend reality to make their conjecture fit? I'll bet that the members of the first category numbers zero, or something very close to it. The rest are a dime a dozen.


I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.
Oh, I'm nowhere near as embarrassed as you really ought to be, but just don't have the sense to.


And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."
It means to assume the conclusion to be argued as a given, a priori. You do it every time you assert something beginning "obviously...."  without providing any other argument or evidence. Like Robert Harris, you do that quite a bit.
Title: Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on February 02, 2024, 06:27:30 PM
Before I respond to your jaw-dropping arguments, I will note that your reply suggests that you are either something of a newcomer to the case or that you have read few of the primary sources and few sources that do not support the lone-gunman position.

MG: That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? Riley puts it exactly where we see it in the HSCA's own wound diagram, right around 1 inch above the lambda and 3/4ths of an inch to the right of the sagittal suture.

Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it.

I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.


What I said is exactly what Riley did, and it can be seen simply by inspecting his figure. Your appeals to the lambda's location are useless, since the lambda isn't visible in the TotH photos. Only the distance from the rear of the head to the wound is important here, because it's the only common reference point available in the photo.

LOL! Uh, so just never mind that Riley included the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture in his diagram and that he put the cowlick site right around 1 inch above the lambda and 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture?! Just never mind that? Is this whacky reasoning how you rationalize your absurd claim that Riley put the cowlick site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did"? He did no such thing, and the fact that you won't admit this shows you're not to be taken seriously.

Of course the lambda and the sagittal suture are not visible in the top-of-head photos! Sheesh! Duh! But Riley included those features in his diagram to pinpoint the location of the cowlick site, and he put it exactly where the HSCA did, as anyone with two eyes can see. Plus, when the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp, they would have seen those landmarks.

The "red spot" is concave. A spot of blood would not be.

When Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist, examined the autopsy photos for the ARRB, he reached a different conclusion:

-----------------------------------------------------
On the photographs showing the back of the head (#s 15 16 42 and 43) it was observed that the red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph. (Meeting Report: Independent Review of JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs By Outside Consultant--Forensic Anthropologist, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 1)
-----------------------------------------------------

And if you're still going to cling to the debunked cowlick site (the red spot), then you need to explain

-- how this site can explain the two bullet fragments that are 1 cm below it (one in the outer table and the other between the outer table and the galea).

-- how this site could be associated with the high fragment trail given that this trail starts/ends nowhere near the site, is nearly 2 inches above it, and ranges downward from its left/rearward end.

Also: The BOH photos were shot to center on the "red spot." There is a ruler placed right next to the "red spot." The photos show that someone parted the hair away from the "red spot."

That is, everything about the BOH photos indicate that they were taken specifically to document the "red spot." They wouldn't have done that if it was just a "spot of blood."

Oh my goodness. I'll start by repeating the fact, which you ignored, that the autopsy photographer who took this photo, John Stringer, said that the red spot was not the entry wound and that the photo was not taken to show the entry wound.

Also, I take it you haven't read Humes and Boswell's HSCA testimony, have you? Humes flatly rejected the suggestion that the ruler was placed to be centered on the red spot and that the red spot was therefore the entry wound. After noting that the entry wound was lower on the skull, he explained that the ruler was placed there simply to establish scale and not to identify the red spot as the entry wound:

-----------------------------------------------------
Dr PETTY Then this is the entrance wound The one down by the margin of the hair in the back.
Dr HUMES Yes, sir.
Dr PETTY Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more.
Dr HUMES Exactly.
Dr PETTY It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something.
Dr HUMES No way no way. (1 HSCA 246)
-----------------------------------------------------

A few minutes later, in further commentary on the main back-of-head photo, Humes noted that they reflected scalp at the cowlick site and that there was no wound there:

-----------------------------------------------------
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point I don't know what that is It could be to me clotted blood I don't I just don't know what it is but it certainly was not any wound of entrance. (1 HSCA 254)
-----------------------------------------------------

And I take it that you're unaware that when the HSCA FPP showed Finck the main back-of-head photo, he questioned the photo's origin--indeed, he asked how the photo had been determined to have been taken at the autopsy. Gee, now why did he do that?

I have the timeless reality captured in the photos themselves on my side. You only have the faded memories of a old man trying to remember something he saw 35 years before.

You are kidding yourself. You have autopsy photos that contradict each other and that drastically contradict the skull x-rays. When the autopsy forensic pathologist was shown the main back-of-head photo, he disputed its origin and insisted that it did not show the entry wound that he personally examined and that he had had photographed from both sides.

"35 years before"? The autopsy report was written hours after the autopsy. Finck wrote his report to Blumberg barely a year after the autopsy. The autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy photos and x-rays in late 1966 and reported that they confirmed the autopsy report. The autopsy doctors testified before the HSCA in 1978, 15 years after the autopsy.

Every single autopsy witness who has commented on the location of the rear head entry wound has said it was near the EOP and the hairline.

I might add that 35 years ago is not such a long period that no one can remember events that occurred at the time. 35 years ago, I was stationed at Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece. I can still clearly remember all kinds of events and other things from my time there. I can still name many of the people I worked with. I can still remember the name of the street that I lived on. I can provide detailed accounts of many events that I experienced while I was there--what happened, who was there, when they happened, where they happened, etc., etc.

It's that Rockefeller Commission report that you can't quote in context, innit? In the RC interviews and testimony, Hodges agreed with Spitz, who placed the wound high.

Uh, no, it's not the Rockefeller Commission's report. Can you read? It's the report that Dr. Hodges submitted to the Rockefeller Commission (RC). The RC buried his report. It did not surface until years later.

And, no, Hodges did not agree with Spitz on this issue. Where do you get that? Did you suffer a flash of amnesia and forget about Hodges' report when you wrote this?

FYI, the RC medical panel itself did not comment on the location of the rear head entry wound. The RC medical panel was asked only to determine "whether the movements of the President's head and body following the fatal shot are consistent with the President being struck from (a) the rear, (b) the right front, or (c) both the rear and the right front" (RC report, p. 261). Thus, the panel did not reach or issue a formal conclusion regarding the wound's location.

I might add that Dr. Hodges was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.

MG: So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?

Dream on, Sunshine

Yeah, I should have known better than to think that for once you were actually dealing credibly with the evidence. My bad.

So, tell me, where do you get this silly claim that the scalp was not reflected? Where does Jerry Organ get it? Reflection of the scalp in an autopsy involving a headshot is basic, standard procedure. The HSCA FPP did not deny that the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp. The autopsy report says the scalp was reflected. The autopsy doctors referred to their reflecting of the scalp in their WC testimony, HSCA testimony, and ARRB testimony. The chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, said the scalp was reflected. And, autopsy photo F8 is labeled "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp."

So where in the world do you get this nonsense that the autopsy pathologists did not reflect the scalp? You don't want to admit that they reflected the scalp because you know this makes it impossible to believe that they "mislocated" the rear head entry wound by 4 inches, that they mistook a wound above the lambda for a wound slightly above the EOP.

In Finck's correspondence to Blumberg, he reiterates the autopsy report's measurements for the back wound, noting that those were his measurements. But when it came to the BOH wound, he notably omitted the autopsy report's description of the wound location, opting instead for much more generalized, non specific language. This should tell you that he either didn't agree with the location in the AR or he wasn't confident enough in his own observations to  be more specific. The autopsy report's own description of the wound location, 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP, should tell you right off the bat that they didn't actually bother to measure it's location, or make much note of it's position. Otherwise, the AR would be much more specific on that matter and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The Blumberg letters are important in that this is the only point where Finck does not have to defend the autopsy report in public, and he has the luxury of allowing himself to freely relate his experience.

You will, do doubt, bring up that Finck put the wound in what he called the "occipital bone" and the "occipital region." But "occiput" only means "the back part of the head or skull" (per Mirriam-Webster), and some point of "occipital bone" or "occipital region" may not actually lie within the bone called the occipital bone. You can, of course, claim that Finck would have seen the suture lines dividing the different cranial bones; however, the surface of the skull is covered by adhering soft tissue like the periosteum, the loose areolar tissue and the various interior membranes which obscure the exact surface of the bone and hide the sutures as any meaningful guidepost.

LOL! What a load of hogwash. So according to you, the terms "occipital region" and "occipital bone" may refer to an area outside the occiput! Go to any medical dictionary and you'll discover that those terms always and only refer to bone in the occiput and to scalp above the occiput. Finck would have never used those terms to describe damage that was not in the occiput. If the wound had been in the parietal bone, he, of all people, would have specified this--he was known for being a stickler for exactitude and precision.

Finck not only told Blumberg that he "found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone" but that he based his conclusion about the direction of the bullet on the "pattern of the occipital bone perforation."

When Finck was asked about the cowlick site during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, he adamantly rejected it:

-----------------------------------------------------
I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it. (Clay Shaw trial transcript, 2/26/69, p. 23, HSCA record number 180-10097-10185)
-----------------------------------------------------

When Finck appeared before the HSCA FPP, he specified that by "slightly above" he meant that the wound was right around 1 cm or 0.39 inches above the EOP.

MG: It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.

HB&F have been getting pelted hard from both sides of the aisle since the 60's, and definitely since the 70's, so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about here.

Really? You're really "not sure" what I'm "actually talking about here"? I find that hard to believe, unless you are truly that poorly read on the case.

Anyway, let me spell it out for you: You and many other WC apologists claim that Humes, Boswell, and Finck made the mind-boggling blunder of mislocating the rear head entry wound by a whopping 4 inches, even though they had the EOP and the hairline as reference points. Given that the back of the head is only about 7 inches in height, and given that the pathologists reflected the scalp and would have had the lambda and lambdoid suture as additional reference points, this would have been an astonishing, incomprehensible error, an error that even a first-year medical student would not make.

I should add that not all WC apologists make this absurd argument. Some WC apologists, such as Dr. Larry Sturdivan, reject the cowlick site.

Virtually all WC apologists (at least all the ones I've read, and I've read dozens) argue that Humes, Boswell, and Finck committed the equally astounding gaffe of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that was at least 2 inches lower, (2) that ranged upward instead of downward, and (3) that began near the EOP instead of above the cowlick site. You guys have to make this argument because the existing autopsy x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.

Conspiracy theorists have criticized the autopsy doctors on several points, but no conspiracy theorist in the last 25 years has accused them of committing those two surreal blunders.

I never actually claimed that the entire skull was pulled apart, so I'm also not sure what you're talking about. I wonder if you know what you're talking about at this point.

Right. You're "not sure" what I'm talking again. Okay. Go back and read our previous exchanges.
 
When M L Fackler was researching the effects of 5.56x45 bullets breaking up after impact, he found that the original M193 bullets created a temporary cavity about 20-25cm across and a permanent cavity about 15-20cm wide. An adult male cranium is about 14cm, max, inside-to-inside along the sagittal axis. An M193 bullet has about 1/3 the mass and 70% of the muzzle energy of a 6.5mm Carcano round. Areas of the brain not directly affected by the tearing in the creation of the main wound channel are still subject to being crushed, torqued, and smashed when they were hammered into the inside of the skull by intense cavitation forces, causing blunt force trauma, including lacerations. There should be no question, then, that a 6.5mm would cause damage many centimeters from the bullet path. Period.

So you've ditched your farcical paper-tear explanation and are now repeating Jerry Organ's jostled-brain theory. Again, why do you suppose that neither the Clark Panel nor the HSCA FPP floated this theory to explain the subcortical damage? And, again, why do you suppose they did not even try to explain the subcortical damage?

Moreover, Fackler never claimed that any of those bullets created two separate, unconnected wound paths, and you know it. You are merely drawing an unfounded inference from his finding about cavitation forces. We both know that you cannot cite a single known case where cavitation forces created two separate, unconnected wound paths in a brain, much less a case where this occurred without causing substantial damage to other parts of the brain.

Furthermore, you seem to keep forgetting those troublesome, impossible autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain except for the right-side front-to-back laceration and with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing. They also show an intact cerebellum that doesn't even exhibit any premortem bleeding, and they show no damage whatsoever to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP noted. In addition, they show no damage to the entire left side of the brain, not even any cortical damage--not even to the top-left gyri and lobulus.

Conjure up a theory where cavitation forces could have created two separate and distinct wound paths, one much lower than the other, on the right side of the brain, while causing no damage to the cerebellum, no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, and no damage to the entire left side of the brain. It's just nonsense.

And Dr Riley's recognized expertise in gunshot wounds is.....?

Ditto with Mantik.

We're not talking about expertise in gunshot wounds but expertise in neuroanatomy and in reading skull x-rays. This is why forensic pathologists will have a radiologist on hand during an autopsy, and why forensic pathologists will often consult with neurologists to describe brain damage.

Why do you suppose that no expert on your side has responded to Dr. Riley's research? Oh, that's right: You guys don't have an expert who has anything close to Dr. Riley's credentials in neuroscience. Nor do you have anyone who has Dr. Mantik's dual qualifications of being a physicist and a radiation oncologist. Doug Horne tried to get Dr. John Fitzpatrick to respond to Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis, and he declined to do so.

Do we actually "know" this? Last I checked, this is what Menninger said Donohue said that Fisher said it. Did Fisher really say that, or did Donohue/Menninger just hear what they wanted to hear?

Uh-hu. Yeah. Right. Menninger just "misunderstood" Donahue and/or Donahue lied about what Fisher told him. Of course. FYI, I knew Howard Donahue. Anyone who knew him can tell you that he was a straight shooter. Donahue carefully reviewed every page of Mortal Error before he allowed it to be published.

Since I haven't claimed that any bullet broke up into "circular slices," this must be another of your diversions into the realm of Beside the Point.

LOL! Uh, well, the problem is that, as Dr. Sturdivan, one of your own experts, noted, the 6.5 mm object would be a circular slice if it were a bullet fragment. Except for a small notch on its bottom-right area, it is circular. Did you just not understand Dr. Sturdivan's point? You realize that he's an ardent WC apologist, right? Right? Yet, to his credit, he's had the integrity to admit that the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and cannot be a bullet fragment.

MG: LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd. You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.

So, instead of actually bothering to come up with a single argument against what I proposed

Uh, actually, I did. Can you read? I noted that there's no defect seen in the autopsy materials that leads to the 6.5 mm object.

, you just hide behind flatulent dollops of empty attempts at ridicule. Also, there is no good reason to believe that the fragment penetrated into the inner table; from the x-rays we have, it could simply be lying against the outer table without having poked into it at all.

What?! Who said anything about the "inner table"? The inner table is on the opposite side of the skull cap from the outer table. You don't even know what in the world you're talking about.

Anyway, the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, and a host of private experts from both sides have said that the 6.5 mm object as seen on the x-rays is in the outer table. But according to you they're all wrong and the object could be "lying against the outer table."

I didn't claim that any fragment was "deposited" in either the outer or inner tables. It's like you keep arguing in your head with some alternate version of yourself instead of dealing with what I've said.

You said that the 6.5 mm object could be a fragment that exited the skull, then caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound, and then got trapped against the outer table when this supposed scalp flap fell back down. In short, you said it was deposited by hitting an alleged scalp flap and then getting trapped against the outer table when the scalp flap fell back onto the skull. Let me quote what you said:

Quote
Quote from: Mitch Todd on December 23, 2023, 12:39:43 AM
Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?

Now let me repeat and then expand on why your theory is ludicrous: One, there is no wound leading to the 6.5 mm object from any direction, whether horizontal or vertical. Two, multiple sets of OD measurements have proved beyond any doubt that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic (but its image was superimposed over a smaller genuine fragment, which is visible on the lateral x-rays). Three, your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that the object could not be a bullet fragment (because it has no partner image on the lateral x-rays). Four, it boggles the mind to imagine how a bullet fragment ejected from the alleged exit wound above the right ear could have magically hit an alleged scalp flap that was 1 cm below the cowlick site. Five, there is no evidence of detached scalp at the cowlick site or 1 cm below the cowlick site.

That sentence is a great example of you begging the question. The rest of your reply is simply a lame attempt to avoid answering my question by changing the subject using as much whargrrrbl as you can muster.

I think you're describing your answer, not mine. You ignored everything I'd said before that sentence and then acted like I was avoiding your question. To cut through your smokescreen, I'll pose two simple questions:

One, can you name a single forensic or wound ballistics expert who has said that an FMJ missile can deposit a fragment, much less two fragments, from its cross-section on or in the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull? (Here's a hint: Dr. Sturdivan has stated this is impossible.)

Two, can you name a single case in known of history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet behaved in this manner?

That's right. Boswell remembered something like that happening, but Humes and Finck didn't remember it that way. The rest is you trying to shove a proverbial square peg into a proverbial round hole, kinky lad you. For contemporaneous reference, The Sibert+O'Neill report, the autopsy report, and Finck's correspondence to Blumberg say that the late-arriving fragment completed the exit, not the entry (and put the entry at the rear of the cranium). BTW, you might want to consider that a bullet passing through the skull can result in partial cratering. Sometimes, you even get what's called a "keyhole", where there are two (roughly) half-craters, one facing inside and one facing outside. Each crater occupying it's own half of the circumference. And, again, Humes and Boswell had partially disassembled the remaining skull to remove the brain. Finck may not have seen the entire wound when it was pointed out to him.

You're once again decades behind the information curve. Although Humes and Finck later contradicted Boswell's description, they did not initially do so but indicated they agreed with it.

And you know that Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA that one of the large late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone, right? Right? You know this, right?

If it's clown material, then it should be right up your alley, Bozo.

Oh, wow. "Bozo"? Are we in high school?

The autopsy report really isn't very specific about the secondary characteristics shown in the x-rays, including the location of the minor fragments. I suspect that this is because Humes, Boswell and Finck no longer had access to the x-rays, and were relying on their memory, rather than some grand subversion. Their omission then becomes an empty canvas upon which the easily excitable can scrawl their own brightly-colored pictures in finger-paint.

This is another howler. I guess you were trying to deflect from your Captain Obvious comment that, gee, the high fragment trail is incompatible with the EOP site. Are you just hoping that no one who reads your reply will have read or will read the autopsy report? Or has it been a long time since you read the autopsy report?

The autopsy report specifically describes a fragment trail that begins near the EOP and ends at a point just above the right orbit. Now, why would the autopsy doctors have described this trail but not the obvious high fragment trail? The high fragment trail is at least 2 inches above the highest point of the low fragment trail--moreover, the high fragment trail goes downward from its left/rearward end, whereas the low fragment trail is described as going upward from its left/rearward end.

And, BTW, the high fragment trail is not really compatible with the cowlick site either, given that it's nearly 2 inches above the site, given that it does not start/end anywhere near the site, and given that it ranges downward from its left/rearward end.

MG: No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?

Of these "dozen's of scholars" you mention, how many actually have any real demonstrated and accepted expertise in gunshot wounds? How many are simply medical dilettantes, swimming unsupervised well out of their own specialties? How many are just wild-eyed dorks who have a conclusion they don't know how to prove, and simple bend reality to make their conjecture fit? I'll bet that the members of the first category numbers zero, or something very close to it. The rest are a dime a dozen.

Wow. Really? Again, you don't have to be an expert in gunshot wounds to read x-rays and to identify damage and wound paths, but you do have to have expertise in reading x-rays. And if you're going to do optical density analysis, it greatly helps if you have a background in physics and radiation oncology (especially if you use optical density measurements as part of your job). Nor do you need to have expertise in gunshot wounds to analyze autopsy photos to determine brain, scalp, and skull damage, but you do have to have expertise in neuroscience to fully describe that damage.

Now theorizing about the type of bullet that caused the damage, the bullet's velocity, the bullet's behavior in the skull, etc., does require expertise in wound ballistics.

This being said, how about Dr. Roger McCarthy, a wound ballistics expert? How about Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences? How about Dr. Doug DeSalles, who has conducted wound ballistics experiments? These experts have argued that two bullets hit JFK in the head.

IOW, you're going to trash any expert who doesn't agree with you, even though your side has uncritically gobbled up claims made by medical doctors and scientists who had no formal training in gunshot wounds (e.g., Lattimer [M.D.], Artwohl [M.D], Nalli [M.S. in Science Education and PhD in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences], etc.).

Finally, just on a point of basic English, I didn't say "dozen's of scholars" but "dozens of scholars." In grade school, they teach youngsters that to make a word plural in English, you add an s, not an apostrophe and an s.

Oh, I'm nowhere near as embarrassed as you really ought to be, but just don't have the sense to.

It means to assume the conclusion to be argued as a given, a priori. You do it every time you assert something beginning "obviously...."  without providing any other argument or evidence. Like Robert Harris, you do that quite a bit.

Yeah. Uh-huh. See above.