What the hell do you know about forensic science?
Is this supposed to be some kind of answer to the point that forensic science tells us that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of fragments after striking skull bone and that on the "rare" occasions when they fragment at all they will leave only a few fragments?
I actually know quite a bit about forensic science. Unlike you, I've taken the time to read a number of handbooks on forensic science, such as Vincent DiMaio's
Gunshot Wounds, Malcolm Dodd's
Terminal Ballistics, DiMaio and Suzanna Dana's
Handbook of Forensic Pathology, and Russell Fisher and Charles Petty's
Forensic Pathology: A Handbook for Pathologists, along with many articles on bullet behavior.
It's just this simple: If JFK's head had been hit by FMJ ammo, the autopsy skull x-rays would only show a few bullet fragments, just as we see in the released x-rays of the skulls from the WC's head-shot wound ballistics test. If FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the autopsy skull x-rays would not show a cluster of dozens of tiny fragments. If FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head in the rear, the autopsy skull x-rays would not show any fragments embedded in the rear outer table of the skull. Not on this planet anyway.
Finally, it is worth noting once again that in your whacky theory of the shooting, two FMJ bullets hit JFK, with one of them emerging virtually undamaged, with its lands and grooves intact, and with a loss of no more than 4 grains of its substance after allegedly penetrating seven layers of skin, smashing 4-5 inches of rib bone, and shattering a distal radius bone, while the other one shatters into dozens of metal particles, leaves a number of measurable fragments, and produces two sizable fragments after transiting a human skull.
Recent Posts