Does it really matter who killed JFK?

Isn't the really important thing the fact that the Kremlin and its KGB (today's SVR and FSB) has "made hay" out of the anomaly-replete assassination literally since Day One, when it told Morris Childs -- one of the FBI's SOLO brothers who couriered $28 million from the Kremlin to the CPUSA over twenty years -- that it had nothing to do with former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator Oswald during the two-and-a-half years he lived in the USSR?

And, for example, in March of 1967 it planted an anti-CIA/anti-Clay Shaw article in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper, which article was given to over-ambitious, scandal-plagued, and revengeful New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison by Joan Mellen's far-left ex-husband and motivated Garrison to change his theory against Shaw from "He masterminded a Loeb and Leopold-like homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK!" to "He organized it for the evil, evil, evil CIA!!!"

Rhetorical question: If "Deep State Fascists" killed JFK, are they disappointed that it took so long to get someone like Donald Trump in the White House?

So you admit you have no basis for your suggestion that the sound of the second shot could reverberate for over 2 seconds. Pretty much what I thought.

If you read the whole post you can see that it has been tested. And the results showed that the sound continued for several seconds as noticed by witnesses. 

So what are you suggesting? That there was an echo of an echo?

It is called reverberation. 

I used my AI app to get information about Dr. Vincent Di Maio's work in regards to the fragmentation of full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets. Here is the result:

[quote on]

Vincent Di Maio on Fragmentation of Full Metal Jacket Ammo in Skull Penetration

Vincent J. M. Di Maio, a renowned forensic pathologist and expert on gunshot wounds, has written extensively on the ballistic behavior of full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets and their interaction with bone, including the skull. In his authoritative work Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Di Maio explains that FMJ bullets are designed to maintain their jacket integrity during flight, but when they encounter bone, the jacket can fragment due to the high pressures and stresses involved.

How FMJ Bullets Fragment in Bone
When an FMJ bullet strikes bone, especially dense bone like the skull, the jacket can deform and break apart. This fragmentation is a result of:

High pressure and velocity from the bullet’s flight.

Bone resistance causing localized stress concentrations.

Jacket material properties — the copper or gilding metal jacket can fracture under impact, especially if the bullet is not perfectly round or if there are imperfections in the jacket layer.

Di Maio notes that fragmentation in bone is more common with FMJ than with pure lead bullets, because the jacket is more rigid and less ductile, making it more prone to cracking under the compressive and shear forces of bone contact ia800508.us.archive.org.

Forensic Pathology Context
In forensic examinations, the pattern of fragmentation can be important for:

Determining the caliber and type of bullet.

Assessing the trajectory and impact point.

Understanding the mechanism of injury in bone and soft tissue.

For skull penetration, fragmentation can lead to multiple entry wounds or bone chips being propelled into surrounding tissue, which can complicate the wound pattern and the pathologist’s reconstruction of the event.

Key Takeaway
According to Di Maio’s forensic ballistics principles, FMJ bullets can fragment in bone, including the skull, due to the combination of high-velocity impact and the rigidity of the jacket. This fragmentation is a documented phenomenon in forensic pathology and can be observed in autopsy findings, though it is not always the primary cause of injury — the bullet’s core and the bone’s reaction are equally important in determining the wound’s characteristics.

If you need a visual or technical reference, Di Maio’s Gunshot Wounds book and his other forensic pathology publications provide detailed diagrams and case-based explanations of bullet fragmentation in bone.

[quote off]

In my previous post, I suggested Di Maio might not have much direct experience with FMJ rifle gunshots to the head. However, since he did write a book about gunshot wounds, it seems probable to me he would have looked at case studies beyond his own experience and would have larger knowledge base than what he acquired through his own work as a forensic medical examiner.

MTG has made several claims about Di Maio's work which I am quite skeptical about. For one, MTG claims Di Maio changed his mind about his earlier work which accepted Oswald was the lone assassin. We only have MTG's word for this since he doesn't actually quote Di Maio rejecting his earlier belief. He goes on to claim that Di Maio said that FMJ bullets would never shatter the way that the bullet that struck  JFK's head did. This gets back to a question I raised in my earlier post. Was Di Maio speaking about FMJ rifle ammo or pistol ammo. Due to the vast difference in velocity, this is an important factor. Given MTG's practice of citing people out of context, I am highly skeptical of his claims about Di Maio's conclusions. I will give MTG the opportunity to clarify his claims by answering two simple questions.

1. Can MTG QUOTE Di Maio actually saying that he had abandoned his earlier position that Oswald was the lone assassin?

2. Can MTG provide context that would tell us Di Maio said FMJ rifle ammo would not fragment as shown in the JFK x-rays or was Di Maio speaking specifically of handgun ammo when he made that observation.

I suspect MTG has been giving us his own interpretation of what Di Maio has said on the subject but will be glad to drop my skepticism if he can provide quotes from Di Maio that specifically address the question of Oswald as the lone assassin and that he was speaking specifically of rifle ammo when he made his observations on how a FMJ bullet would fragment after striking a skull.

After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook.  This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports

True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.

Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).

Really?

The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.

Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.

Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?

Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.

Bingo!

Martin's four year old post,

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3504.msg131753.html#msg131753
....
That's just Guy Rose's recollection. And it simply doesn't make sense, because Bentley had already identified him in the car as Oswald and he knew they had his wallet. So, why in the world would Oswald say his name was Hidell.
.....

And....

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/rose_g.htm
....
Mr. ROSE. I went on duty shortly after the assassination. At the time of the assassination I was not on duty.
Mr. BALL. Did somebody call you and ask you to come on duty?
Mr. ROSE. No; I came in just as soon as I heard of the shooting--I came on to work.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
Mr. BALL. What did you say to him or did he say to you?
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first came in there--you said that he said his name was "Hidell"?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Did he give you his first name?
Mr. ROSE. He just said "Hidell"; I remember he just gave me the last name of "Hidell".
Mr. BALL. And then you found two or three cards on him?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Were you sitting down?
Mr. ROSE. No; I was standing in the interrogation room.
Mr. BALL. Where was he--was he standing too?
Mr. ROSE. No; he was sitting in the chair.
Mr. BALL. Was he handcuffed?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. Were the handcuffs behind or in front of him?
Mr. ROSE. I believe they were behind him--I don't remember for sure.
Mr. BALL. Who else was present at that time?
Mr. ROSE. Detective Stovall, he was my partner, and I believe both uniformed men were present--two of the uniformed men were present.
Mr. BALL. The ones who brought him in?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Do you know their names?
Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--I did see McDonald and I did talk to him, but I don't remember whether he was the one that was standing right there at the time or not.
Mr. BALL. After you saw the cards, you asked him which one was his true name?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. ROSE. He said, "You find out."[/quote

VS Bentley's statement,

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=252

Which is the superior image?
Which contains the more detail?