I guess it has never occurred to you that the two limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

You've got to be kidding.

-- Tom

PS I think you're sick in the head and should seek help.

An amazingly stupid claim given that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo that had two pieces which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle.

One, I guess it has just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting.

Two, I guess it has also just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments could not have come from the head-shot ammo, given the known, established fact of forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment into dozens of tiny fragments, much less do so while also depositing several fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon entry and while also magically somehow depositing two fragments at the opposite end of the skull with no other fragments or particles anywhere near them.

Three, obviously, you don't care about all the problems with the chain of custody of the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo and in JFK's body.

Pure BS.

No, it's not. You haven't even read the evidence under discussion. You have no idea what it says. You constantly denounce evidence you haven't even studied.

The only person who said he saw Oswald at the time of the shooting was Howard Brennan and he saw him shooting the rifle.

Brennan's belated, coerced "identification" of Oswald as the man he saw in the window is a joke. Most prosecutors would not dare use such a doubtful, problematic identification in a trial.

There are no witnesses who said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the time of the shooting. There is no one who gives Oswald an alibi.

You must know you're being deceptive here. None of this actually directly addresses what I said. Let me repeat what I wrote:

Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it.

Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor no more than 5-10 minutes before JFK's motorcade was scheduled to drive through Dealey Plaza.

Sarah Stanton's family said Sarah told them she saw and spoke with Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD when the motorcade drove through the plaza.

Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and the Stroud memo make it clear that Oswald could not have come down the stairs in time to make it to the second-floor lunchroom to encounter Officer Baker there, proving that Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
 

More BS. The entry wound on the back was higher than the exit wound in the front.

This myth was debunked decades ago. Even the HSCA FPP put the back wound below the throat wound. How can you not know such basic stuff?

The rear JFK clothing holes alone are hard physical evidence that the back wound was well below the throat wound.

If you think otherwise, tell us where you think the shot that hit JFK in the back was fired from, your evidence that supports that shot, and where you think that bullet went.

One, I've already done this, several times.

Two, I've pointed out to you several times that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established for an absolute fact through prolonged and extensive probing that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point, that autopsy technicians around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as exit point for the back wound, and that we now know from Dr. Ebersole's released HSCA testimony that Humes knew about the throat wound before the end of the autopsy but then falsely claimed he knew nothing about it until the following morning.

Ignoring these facts won't make them go away.

Three, you need to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have struck JFK at an upward trajectory and tunneled upward from there. Dr. Werner Spitz, one of the FPP majority, admitted in 1975 that the back-wound bullet "penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction" and that the bullet "traveled upwards within the body." He admitted this in his report to the Rockefeller Commission, adding that there was "no doubt" about it:

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)

The HSCA FPP likewise noted this exact same fact: that the bullet struck and tunneled at an upward angle. 

Oswald never took a polygraph. Do you just type things that pop into your head?

Is this a serious question? Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Did you forget our discussion about O'Toole's PSE/VSA analysis of Oswald's statements to newsmen while he was in police custody? How  could you not remember that the PSE/VSA analysis was done from TV footage of Oswald's statements to reporters?

An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and then took a paraffin test on his right cheek. He too tested negative, proving the Carcano could be fired without leaving nitrates on the shooter's cheek. This was explained in the WCR. Have you ever read it?

You must know this is both misleading and irrelevant. That agent's paraffin cast was not subjected to the super-sensitive NAA test, and he was not part of the control test that the FBI conducted to determine the accuracy of the Oakridge NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast.

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 the NAA test to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces.

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).

I pointed out these facts to you quite recently. Did you just forget them?
 

Repeating a lie thousands of times over decades will not make it come true. Oswald was capable of consistently hitting a target at ranges of 200 yards and more in order to twice qualify by USMC standards. That was without the aid of a scope. When he shot JFK, his longest shot was only 88 yards and was aided by a scope.

This kind of deception and omission is why you have no credibility. People who read our previous exchanges on this issue are going to wonder how you could make these statements with a straight face.

Are you ever going to explain why the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, using the alleged murder weapon itself, utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up?
 

Oswald had a motive. He just didn't tell anybody what it was. The fact that his motive can't be proven doesn't mean he didn't have one. Tell us how that proves Oswald did not shoot JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

Oh my! Can you retroactively read minds or something? How do you know Oswald had a motive? What is your basis for adamantly declaring "Oswald had a motive"? Answer: Your circular reasoning that since you believe Oswald shot JFK, you infer that he therefore must have had a motive.

Ask any detective or prosecutor about the importance of establishing a motive in any complex or strongly contested case.
 

Tell us how those Cubans knew two months in advance that JFK's motorcade would be routed right past Oswald's workplace. It would have been pretty silly to try to frame Oswald without knowing that?

This is juvenile silliness. You are embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical illogic. Even Lance Payette has taken you to task for this silly argument.

How does your backward theorizing explain the Lopez-Hardway evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City? How does it explain Silvia Odio's account, which was corroborated by her sister Annie?

Indirect my aching ass. We don't find serious problems with the evidence. Only dedicated Oswald deniers such as yourself reach for any excuse imaginable to dismiss each and every piece of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt. The is no universe where the body of evidence could point to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
Duncan should retitle this thread, 10 Reasons to Laugh at Michael T. Griffith. Not that we needed more reasons to do that.

So why do you suppose Dallas police chief Jesse Curry told the Dallas Morning News in November 1969 that there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window? Let's read his statement again:

We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.

I notice you said nothing about Curry's statement.

Why did Norman Mailer state that he believed he could have gotten Oswald acquitted if he had been Oswald's lawyer in a trial?

I also notice you said nothing about the fact that the belated DPD claim that Oswald's palmprint had been found on the barrel of the rifle was so suspicious that even the WC doubted the palmprint's origin. 

A weapon was fired on Elm street, but smell by GK was from a distraction fire cracker tossed to distract from real shooters. Smoke, noise but no weapon.

Silly

MG:Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.

-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a  control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.

-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:

It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)

-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:

The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.

I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .

Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.

In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:

"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."

Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)

-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)

Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.

-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.

Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:

The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)

Dr. Mantik adds,

When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .

Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)

JC:
Nobody cares what an amateur like you thinks about the autopsy evidence, especially given that you've seen so little of it.

In other words, your response to all the forensic, radiologic, and ballistics evidence discussed by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Morgan is to once again fall back on your dodge that I am merely presenting my own baseless opinions.

It is worth quoting what real medical experts have said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

Dr. Greg Henkelmann, himself a radiation oncologist and physicist:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. His unusual background exposes the government-sponsored coverup that has deceived Americans into believing that Oswald was a “lone wolf.” It is now past time to be crying wolf.(In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, p. 157)

Dr. William Keough, a medical physicist at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre in Scotland:

His [Mantik’s] logical and scientific approach refutes the many inconsistencies that officials have promulgated as fact since the 22nd of November 1963. From the 6.5 mm metallic fragment in the AP autopsy X-ray to the “black rectangle” patch on the back of President Kennedy’s skull identified in the copy of the Zapruder film, to name a few.... Although the majority of Americans still do not believe the Warren Commissions’ fairy tale, only a limited number of people will be in a position to evaluate the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence that supports a different narrative. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 157-158)

Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist:

I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed his [Dr. Mantik’s] optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth. . . .

The bright object [in the AP JFK autopsy X-ray] measures 6.5 mm in diameter, and there is no counterpart found on the lateral image. There was no discussion of this in the Warren Commission report, and no official x-ray interpretation was included in the report. No bullet fragment of this size was removed at the time of the autopsy. Within the outline of this bright object are the shapes of two fragments. I agree with Dr. David Mantik that the film was copied, and this bright object was added to the image. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 158-159)

MG:If so, why do you suppose the lone-gunman view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world? It's not like the lone-gunman view has suffered from a lack of cheerleading and advocacy by many legacy news outlets. Most people just don't buy what you're selling.

JC: I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt. . . .

LOL! That's the same thing that Moon-landing deniers, 9/11 Truthers, Holocaust deniers, and Flat Earthers say about the fact that most people reject their theories. "Very few people know the facts about the evidence for our views!"

and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's @&%$ movie.

More comedy. So a movie made in 1991 is the reason your view on the JFK case is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world!

This is similar to the lame excuse that 9/11 Truthers, Moon-landing deniers, etc., offer to explain why most people don't buy their theories. They complain that news outlets and TV networks haven't given their views a fair hearing.

Yet, you guys certainly can't claim that your version of the JFK case has not received plenty of favorable coverage, and often outright advocacy, by legacy news outlets, but most people still don't buy what you're selling.

I think the Luna Committee has done some great work. The hearings alone have been valuable and have exposed millions of Americans (via C-SPAN) to important evidence through the testimony of Dan Hardway, Stephen Kinzer, Tom O'Neill, Doug Horne, Dr. Curtis, and others.