Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Reasonable Doubts?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 04:21:57 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 10:02:20 PM
What in the world? I will charitably assume you must have a reading problem. I pointed out that Dr. Shaw, who operated on the wound, said it was elliptical, and then I quoted him saying it was elliptical. Let me quote him again:

The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. (6 H 95)

And, to repeat, he's the guy who operated on the wound. He also explained that he debrided the wound elliptically, around its edges.

You know the wound measured 1.5 x 0.8 cm, right? You know this, right? That's almost identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound--1.5 x 0.6 cm--yet no one has ever floated the theory that the head-shot bullet was markedly tumbling when it struck.

For newcomers who haven't read the whole thread, I should add that Dr. Shaw also pointed out that Connally's back-wound bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116), which debunks the idea that the bullet was markedly tumbling--either when it hit or when it tore through Connally.

BTW, Dr. Shaw was an experienced thoracic surgeon who had operated on over 1,000 gunshot cases, so he had vast experience with bullet wounds. (Ah, but John Corbett says, "That doesn't matter! He wasn't a forensic pathologist!")

Then you'd better quit gambling. Let's see:

Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist and one of the ARRB's three forensic experts, said the the SBT was "very dubious."

Dr. William F. Enos, the forensic pathologist who supervised CBS's SBT wound ballistics test, said the SBT was "highly improbable."

Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the foremost forensic pathologists of the 20th century, said the SBT was impossible, that not even an FMJ bullet could do all the damage claimed for it and emerge with its lands and grooves intact and with such a tiny loss of its substance.

Dr. Joseph Nichols, a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas who trained forensic pathologists, who had numerous articles on pathology published in peer-reviewed medical journals, and who was also a court-certified expert witness in forensic pathology, said the SBT was impossible for a number of reasons: the conflicting angles through JFK and Connally, CE 399's virtually undamaged condition; the lack of an unobstructed path from either of the proposed entry sites to JFK's throat wound; among other reasons.

Dr. Vincent DiMaio, one of the leading forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st century, initially accepted the SBT but later changed his mind after studying the SBT more closely with medical scientist Russell Kent.

LOL! Oh, so NOW you're back to citing the FPP majority! Pure comedy. And this after you just recently claimed that you "don't have to explain" the FPP's finding that the brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; their finding that the skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report; their finding that the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail with its cluster of numerous tiny fragments in the right-frontal region; and their finding that JFK's back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle--a fact that they could only explain by bogusly assuming JFK was leaning over 50 degrees forward when the bullet hit!

If you would ever bother to actually read the FPP's report, you would discover that the FPP majority made no effort to explain the fact that the projectile that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing. The FPP majority also made no effort to explain how the alleged magic bullet could have nicked the top surface of the tie knot inward from the left edge while making no hole through the tie knot nor through any other part of the tie. 

And, as mentioned, the only way the FPP majority could explain the JFK back-wound bullet's upward impact angle and upward tunneling was by making the demonstrably false assumption that Kennedy was leaning forward by over 50 degrees.

We have known for decades now that there was no hole through JFK's tie and that the nick on the knot was not on the edge of the knot. In fact, in an effort to create the false impression that a bullet passed through the tie knot, the FBI made an evidence photo of the knot with the knot twisted in such a way that the nick appeared to be in the middle of the knot. When Harold Weisberg, through years of FOIA suits, finally gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, he discovered there was no hole through the tie, a fact that the HSCA later quietly admitted.

Yet, SBT believers continue to ignore this hard physical evidence and still peddle their debunked theory. You guys are like Flat Earthers who ignore satellite images of the Earth and continue to insist the globe is flat.

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

As a follow-up, it's worth noting that Dr. Henry Lee, an internationally recognized forensic pathologist, has said he "doubts" the SBT, and that the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and the journal Forensic have endorsed Knott Laboratory's SBT trajectory analysis. In fact, Forensic did their own documentary on the JFK case using Knott Lab's SBT trajectory study. 

Also, Dr. Jerry Labriola, a forensic expert, said the SBT "doesn't work." Dr. Labriola, who died in 2024, co-authored with Dr. Lee the books Famous Crimes Revisited and Shocking Cases from Dr. Henry Lee's Forensic Files. Dr. Labriola worked in forensic pathology while in the Navy and later became a professor at the University of Connecticut Medical School. He gave many lectures on forensic science issues. One of his most popular lectures was "Ignoring Forensic Science" in which he discussed gunshot cases where medical examiners missed or misinterpreted important forensic evidence.

2
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Huge Gates Theory
« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 04:11:16 PM »
I thought maybe it had something to do with the street lights, but it's clear from the photos that the fascia extends on the other side of it and that it is a Flat Something. What I thought was the front of a box is in fact the extension of the fascia. I'm now inclined to agree with Royell that it's a flat screen LCD monitor by which a conspirator stationed inside the TSBD could monitor and coordinate the activities of the Bogus One Glove Haygood, the Fake Lovelady and Shelley, the Getaway Car, and the other participants and accoutrements of the conspiracy. If that works for everyone, let's just leave it there.
3
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Today at 03:42:59 PM »
What's revealing is that Michael Griffith said he believes in the HSCA acoustic evidence. That is four shots: three from the TSBD (or behind JFK) and one shot from the fence/GK (or to his right side.)

That alone disproves a entrance shot to the throat. That's if, as he does, believe the acoustic analysis.

He also believes there was a shooter on top of the linen truck and that Babushka Lady was a CIA agent, June Cobb, and that she "possibly" shot JFK with a camera gun. That's two more shots. And he believes that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated assassination of JFK. That's another shooter, at least.

He has shooters all over Dealey Plaza shooting from various angles and locations. But he also believe the HSCA acoustic analysis of two shooters and two locations.

He believes in things that contradict other things that he believes. It's a mishmash of claims that are at odds with other claims. Day after day, week after week, month after month. For decades. It's the classic example of a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind.

4
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 03:28:20 PM »
Quote from: Steve Barber on Today at 03:15:15 PM
Here are three crucial Zapruder film frames that dispel the theory that President Kennedy "grabs" ,"grabbed" or "clutched his throat".

Note that his right hand immediately jerks upward, and either in front of his mouth, or over it.  His upper body is also thrust forward, twice-one after the other- as his right hand meets his mouth.
 
Note that, except for the forefinger on his left hand, his fingers are curled under, and is either against the under side of his right hand or just below it.  Neither hand goes toward his throat, or anywhere near it. Also note in frame 248, JFK's right hand is at cheek level.  He has turned his head slightly to his left, while his hand is still at the same level it was in over/in front of his mouth.

This really doesn't make much of a difference either way, but I agree that this is what the film shows. For a time, his hands are moving toward and then reach the level of his throat, but then they continue to move upward and end up at his mouth.

It is not inaccurate to say that at first his hands are moving toward the level of his throat, but it is inaccurate to say that he grabs or clutches his throat.


5
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: A Few of the Problems with the Case Against Oswald
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 03:17:01 PM »
Another important item of evidence of Oswald's innocence is the NAA testing that was done on the paraffin cast from his right cheek. The paraffin mold was made from his right cheek about eight hours after the assassination. The  paraffin cast was eventually tested at the Oak Ridge Laboratory using the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test. The NAA test found no chemical indication, i.e., no nitrates, in the paraffin cast that Oswald had fired a rifle during the shooting. The NAA test results were suppressed for years until they were finally released as a result of Harold Weisberg's FOIA lawsuits.

Studies have proven that traces of gunshot residue (nitrates) on a person's skin can be placed on paraffin casts as long as 17 to 24 hours after a shooting. As mentioned, Oswald's paraffin mold was done eight hours after the assassination.

We now know that the morning after the assassination, Dr. M.S Mason and Louie Anderson analyzed the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek for the Dallas police (DPD) with the standard test for detecting nitrates, the diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, and that they found "no nitrates" on the cast. The FBI then tested the right-cheek paraffin cast with a spectrographic paraffin test, and found no nitrate traces on the mold. Yet, the DPD and the FBI lied about the test results and told newsmen that Oswald's right-cheek paraffin mold had tested positive for nitrates and that this was evidence he had a fired a rifle on the day of the assassination.

Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast was then subjected to NAA testing at the Oak Ridge Laboratory, and the NAA test found no traces of nitrates in the mold.

The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found NAA to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces. Since the test required a nuclear reactor, the test was done on the FBI’s behalf at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Oak Ridge facility. Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).

It turns out that one member of the Warren Commission (WC) and one of the WC attorneys knew that NAA testing had found no traces of nitrates on the paraffin mold of Oswald’s right cheek, and that this meant he had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination. WC attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, a memo that came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg. Said Redlich,

At best, the analysis [the NAA test] shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. . . . There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle.” (Memo from Redlich to Dulles, 7/2/1964)

This contradicts the WC’s later claim that nitrates were found on both sides of the paraffin cast of Oswald’s cheek and that therefore the paraffin test was “unreliable.”

The Weisberg FOIA-released documents show that FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham brazenly lied about the paraffin tests in his WC testimony. Yet, WC apologists still cite Cunningham’s testimony to justify their rejection of the negative paraffin results on Oswald’s right-cheek cast.

Moreover, in the Oak Ridge control test, two of the seven shooters also underwent the standard diphenylamine paraffin test, the same kind of test the Dallas police used, and in both cases their cheek casts tested positive for nitrates (General Atomic Report GA-6152 to the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 10-11). Also, all seven shooters had to wait three or four hours after firing the rifle before the paraffin molds were made of their cheeks.

Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin, says the following about the tests done on Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast:

Paraffin tests test on a well-known fact that when a rifle is fired, gases blow back on the shooter’s face and hands, depositing detectable residues. At midnight on November 22, the Dallas police performed the normal tests on Oswald to detect any deposits, using warm liquid paraffin on his right cheek and both hands to make casts. As it hardened, the paraffin would remove and capture any deposits from his skin and pores. Police sent the casts to Dr. Martin F. Mason, director of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigative Laboratory at Parkland Memorial Hospital, who at 10:45 AM on November 23 tested them with reagent diphenyl-benzidine. The results showed “no traces of nitrates” on the right cheek, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle. . . .

In its Report the Commission dismisses paraffin tests by asserting that “a positive reaction is . . . valueless” in showing a suspect fired a weapon and thus “unreliable.” This is disingenuous. To be sure, ink, paper, and many other common objects that Oswald’s hands touched that day during the normal course of his work could have
caused a positive reaction, but as the Commission’s own official evidence proved, the absence of traces is exculpatory. Oswald’s cheek had none; he had not fired a rifle.

Not satisfied with the Dallas testing, the FBI in its laboratory also performed a more refined spectrographic test of the samples, a scientific test used by law enforcement for 60 years in similar cases. The FBI lab drew the same conclusion about residues on the cheek. Then, under pressure from the Commission, the FBI submitted the paraffin casts to a third, even more sophisticated test. They took the samples to the Atomic Energy Commission facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. . . .

Upon receiving word of the findings, FBI headquarters immediately ordered its agents not to release or make known the results to anyone in order “to protect the Bureau”. . . .

Nevertheless, after a bitterly contested lawsuit that lasted ten years, critic Harold Weisberg and his attorney James Lesar obtained the NAA raw data and the results from the bureau and the Oak Ridge authorities.

Weisberg discovered an additional element to the tests that was devastating for the official findings. The FBI had used a control in making the tests. Seven different men had fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and NAA officials had made paraffin casts of their cheeks, which were then tested for residues by the reactor. The control firings had deposited heavy residues on the control cheeks. Oswald’s check cast had no such residues or any traces whatsoever. He had not fired a rifle. (The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, pp. 171-172)

Needless to say, and as we all know, if Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast had tested positive for nitrates in the DPD diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, in the FBI's spectrographic paraffin test, and in the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test, the WC would have hailed this as powerful evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/1963, and WC apologists would still be parroting this position to this day.

But, since Oswald’s cheek cast tested negative for nitrates in all three of those tests, WC apologists bend over backward to not only ignore the negative result but to discredit even the NAA paraffin test, even though the FBI’s own control test found that the NAA paraffin test was 100% reliable for detecting traces of nitrates. They've offered such strained, implausible arguments as the claim that no two rifles discharge gunshot residue (GSR) in the same way or that gusts of wind blew into the sixth-floor window at just the right times, three times in a row, to blow the GSR away from Oswald's right cheek!

Yet, WC apologists offer no such exotic, improbable arguments when it comes to the fact that the paraffin casts of Oswald's hands tested positive for nitrates, indicating he may have fired a pistol on 11/22/63. Most researchers recognize that since Oswald frequently handled materials that could have left nitrates on his hands as part of his everyday job tasks, the finding of nitrates in his hand casts does not necessarily prove he fired a handgun. This is why Redlich told Dulles it was "by no means certain" that the NAA test proved Oswald had fired a pistol.

The most exhaustive analysis of the testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast is Pat Speer's chapter on the subject in his online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

Here's a greatly shortened version of Speer's analysis titled "Bugliosi Fails the Paraffin Test":

https://www.whokilledjfk.net/paraffin_test.htm

Jeremy Bojczuk's article "Oswald's Paraffin Casts" is a helpful introduction to this key evidence:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2049-oswald-s-paraffin-casts
6
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat
« Last post by Steve Barber on Today at 03:15:15 PM »
Here are three crucial Zapruder film frames that dispel the theory that President Kennedy "grabs","grabbed" or "clutched his throat".

Note that his right hand immediately jerks upward, and either in front of his mouth or over it.  His upper body is also thrust forward, twice as his right hand appears to cover his mouth.
 
Note that, except for the forefinger on his left hand, his fingers are curled, and is either against the under side of his right hand, or just below it.  Neither hand goes toward his throat, or anywhere near it. 

 Also note in frame 248, JFK's right hand is at cheek level.  He has turned his head slightly to his left, while his hand is still at the same level it was in over/in front of his mouth.

vlcsnap 2026 06 25 13h24m27s591" border="0

vlcsnap 2026 06 25 13h29m34s162" border="0

vlcsnap 2026 06 25 13h30m28s293" border="0
7
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Huge Gates Theory
« Last post by John Mytton on Today at 02:49:30 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 01:01:43 PM
Not that I care, but in the best photos, including the one from the Sixth Floor Museum, https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/photograph-of-the-exterior-of-the-texas-school-book-depository-3/, it definitely doesn't look like a flat sign. It looks like a "box." That would seemingly be a very odd place for a sign, but not for an electrical box or an alien craft from another dimension of some sort.

The first photo I posted was a crop from a higher definition of the one you linked to! So....
Secondly, why would an electrical box be mounted at a right angle instead of flush against the wall? and on the second floor??
Thirdly, why would the lower section be cut out to fit over the facia?
Fourthly, why is the "front on" photo showing an electrical box with no depth?
And finally, in the following higher res copy of the image, as opposed to the photo in your link, the cable you claim leads to the electrical box, passes by right in front and is not seen in any other hi-res photo.











BTW, establishing a box from a virtually shadowless object in a two dimensional photo is not a good technique, just saying.

JohnM
8
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When Was JFK Hit?
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 02:38:01 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Today at 03:45:47 AM
What is the difference between z224 and z225 that convinces you that JFK is not reacting in z224 but is in z225?
What evidence is telling you that his contorted face in z225 is not part of his reaction?
 
As far as the position of the car as described by the withesses, you need to look at all the evidence. Almost directly in front suggests the car had not yet passed by where she was standing.  But you don’t need to guess. Look at other witnesses. At z225 the VP security car is well past the turn. JFK is no longer in Linda Willis’ sightline to the Stemmons sign.  The limo is well past the west edge of the TSBD (Greer said it was just passing the west edge).  And it is more than a second after Phil Willis’ photo taken at z202 which he said was just after the first shot.

David Von Pein pointed out to me that extreme enlargements at Z225 show an agape facial expression from JFK that is consistent with a reaction to being shot. Of course we can't compare it to Z224 because JFK's face is not visisble then. Between Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips dramatically, possibly a reflex action or possibly driven down by the force of the bullet. The upward arm movement by both men begins at Z226.
9
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 02:30:11 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 12:13:04 AM
Of course, then we have the minor problems of where the bullet from the throat wound went, where the bullet from the back wound went, and the "rather" unusually close alignment of the back and throat wounds - so close that one bullet causing both wounds is by far the accepted theory. Hence Cliff Varnell's reliance on melting CIA-issued ice bullets, which frankly strikes most people as "just a bit" unlikely. Even a dud back wound that only penetrated an inch with a melting CIA ice bullet from the front seems "rather" unlikely - and what the hell would be the point of using a melting ice bullet from the front if it wasn't going to disguise a frontal shot anyway? I believe there are legitimate issues with the SBT, but to still try to be arguing that the throat would is an entrance is far-lunatic-fringe stuff.

Is it just me, or does MTG seem to be in near-desperation mode, flooding the forum with his nonsense? He is the very antithesis of my point that CTers who wish to be taken seriously should focus on plausibility, in terms of both evidence and theory, instead of shoveling loads of far-fetched and internally inconsistent poop and hoping some of it sticks. For all of his relentless self-promotion over umpteen years, MTG seems to have scarcely made a dent in the JFKA community; he strikes me as the proverbial legend in his own mind.

I was going to make all of these points but you saved me the trouble.

You make far more sense when you are wearing your LN cap. Maybe you should 86 all the CT caps. You must have a collection of those. One LN cap is all that is needed.
10
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 01:49:16 PM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:11:33 AM
MTG-

Thanks for posting, but I have always had reservations about the "JFK was shot from the front" narratives.

Have you read the ARRB materials? One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB-released documents is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30 Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, p. 5). This is crucial because we know from the released transcript of the WC's 1/27/64 executive session that one of the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound bullet had no exit, and that the other draft said the throat wound was the exit point for a fragment from the head shot, proving that Humes knew about the throat wound long before he claimed he did.

This, in turn, is very important because we know from the ARRB materials that by the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point, that they had done prolonged and repeated probing, that they had even removed the chest organs so they could see where the probe went inside the chest cavity, and that the autopsy doctors and the men standing near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Jenkins told Lifton the same thing years before the ARRB.

The long-standing myth had been, and among WC apologists still is, that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the following morning and that this was why he did not identify the throat wound as a possible exit point for the back wound. The 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript alone destroys that myth because it reveals that one of the first drafts of the autopsy report said the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment. Yet, to this day, lone-gunman theorists continue to repeat the myth that Humes knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.

The very notion that the autopsy doctors did not know about the throat wound before the autopsy is doubtful on its face. The throat wound had been discussed at the televised press conference with the Dallas doctors held shortly after JFK died. News reports about the press conference were carried on radio stations and appeared in evening-edition newspapers all over the country. For that matter, the autopsy photo that shows JFK's neck clearly shows the bottom half of the circular throat wound; a first-year med student would not have missed it. Anyway, the issue has long since been settled by the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript and later by Ebersole's disclosure to the FPP that Humes know about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 that night (no wonder Ebersole's FPP testimony was sealed--thank goodness the ARRB released it).

Since the throat wound could not have been caused by the back-wound bullet, and since the throat wound could not have resulted from a head-shot fragment (such a fragment would have had to tear a path from the inner skull to the throat), this is strong evidence that the Dallas doctors and nurses were correct in identifying the throat wound as an entry wound, and this, in turn, explains why the throat wound was small, neat, circular, and punched inward, and why the damage behind and below the throat wound was larger than the wound itself.   

I cover this historic evidence in some detail in the research notes that I linked in the OP: “Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view.

As for the evidence of a head shot from the front, I would refer you to three articles that are good introductions on the subject:

Dr. Michael Chesser, “A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs,” Assassination of JFK website, 2015, http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/

Dr. Michael Chesser, “The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of the Brain Photographs,” 2017, Kennedys and King website, https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

"The Head Shot from the Front"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view

Just one point on a frontal head shot: Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA that there was a small hole in JFK's right temple, and that he filled it with wax to keep embalming fluid from leaking out of it. This is telling because shortly after JFK died, Malcolm Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to show reporters how JFK had been shot. In addition, there is a suspicious lesion in this same spot on the stare-of-death autopsy photo that surely looks like it could be an entry wound--and there is also a notch in this same area on the autopsy skull x-rays, as Dr. Chesser discusses. I think one of the best discussions on the implications of Robinson's disclosure is Dr. Don Thomas's analysis in Hear No Evil, pp. 247-279.

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:11:33 AM
1. The windshield.

This is not a problem for a frontal shot to the throat. This issue has already been covered by a number of scholars. Rather than repeat what they've observed, I would just refer you to their research: Dr. Mantik, Doug Weldon, and Doug Horne.

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:11:33 AM
2. Witnesses. JBC and wife believe the shots came from the rear. There are indisputable bullet wounds in JFK's and JBC's back.

I agree, and we both agree that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.

But keep in mind that many witnesses also said shots came from the front, and several witnesses saw gun smoke or smelled gun powder on and near the knoll. In addition, the Wiegman film shows a small cloud of smoke hanging in the air in an area near the fence on the knoll, and that smoke could not have come from the steam pipe over 100 feet away or from patrol bike exhaust, not to mention that the acoustical evidence proves that a shot came from the knoll--and from the same area that Lee Bowers saw two men hanging around and then saw a flash of light or smoke during the shooting. The acoustical evidence for a grassy knoll shot is so strong that even the abjectly biased NAS panel was forced to admit that their own research showed there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the knoll.

I should add that the NAS panel was only able to reduce the probability of the grassy knoll shot from 95%-plus  to 77.7% by introducing two outright errors into their analysis, as Dr. Scheim, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Thomas have discussed. Even then, 77.7% is a high probability.

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:11:33 AM
3. Where did the bullets from the front go?

I'm a bit surprised by this question, but I would answer it by saying we should first consider what we have long known about the FBI's and the DPD's handling of evidence, what we have long known about the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, what we now about the finding of an extra bullet--a misshapen bullet--in the limo during the autopsy, and what we now know from ARRB and other disclosures about the amount of bullet fragments found during the autopsy and the finding of a bullet in the sheets that were wrapped around JFK at the autopsy.

I would refer you to my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing.

The front head-shot bullet was a frangible missile that exploded after penetrating the skull. This bullet's fragments remained in the skull, as is typical for frangible ammo. This is why we see a "snowstorm" of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region on the autopsy skull x-rays. Humes said nothing about this obvious cluster of fragments in the autopsy report because he knew he could not associate it with the EOP entry wound.

The FPP's radiology consultants acknowledged the right-frontal fragment snowstorm, but the FPP themselves merely acknowledged that the x-rays show "numerous minute fragments widely distributed throughout the skull" (7 HSCA 11), and then later in their report they blandly acknowledged that they considered the "small particles of radiopaque materials" at the right coronal suture "to be missile fragments" (7 HSCA 120)--and the FPP obscured the right-frontal lead snowstorm in their "enhanced" versions of the skull x-rays by virtually washing it out of the images.

The "enhanced" skull x-rays fooled Dr. Sturdivan into believing there was no right-frontal cluster of numerous small fragments on the skull x-rays, which cluster he said would be there if a frangible bullet had struck in the right front. (Yet, when he became aware that the unenhanced x-rays show the right-frontal snowstorm, he forgot all about what he told the FPP on the issue and still says the rear head shot was the only head shot.)

We have good evidence that JFK's body arrived about 40-45 minutes before its officially recorded arrival time, and we have at least two witnesses who saw Humes working on the body before the autopsy began. It is entirely possible that Humes removed the throat-wound bullet from the upper chest during this pre-autopsy surgery (the Dallas doctors believed the bullet had ranged downward into the chest).

Another possibility has been raised by several scholars, namely, that a fragment of glass from the bullet that made a hole in the windshield hit the throat and ranged downward into the chest.

The gashed appearance of the throat wound in the autopsy photos could have resulted from pre-autopsy surgery to the wound to remove the projectile that caused it (several Dallas medical witnesses said the throat wound did not look so large and gashed after the tracheostomy).

Those who find the idea of pre-autopsy surgery or another type of suppression of the throat bullet unacceptable need to explain the fact that the throat wound could not have been made by the back-wound bullet or by a head-shot fragment, and the fact that the throat wound had every major textbook characteristic of an entry wound. Fact must govern theory, not the other way around.

It's always a pleasure talking with you, Ben.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10