JFK Assassination Forum

It's always amusing to see amateur sleuths try to apply their limited knowledge to a highly technical field. I prefer to go with what actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.

You know very little about the case and repeatedly avoid dealing with contrary facts by either making erroneous appeals to authority or engaging in circular reasoning. It is clear you have done minimal reading on the case and have only read one side.

"Actual experts," huh? Let's see:

Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.

Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.

Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.

Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ). I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:

Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)

Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert? His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

And on and on and on we could go.

The FPP, composed of some of the most respected medical examiners of their day including WC critic Cyril Wecht, UNANIMOUSLY concurred with the original finding that JFK was struck by two shots fired from above and behind although they did reposition where they thought the entry wound in the back of the head was.

We have a choice here. We can go with the FPP or we can go with MTG? Not a tough call for me.

This nonsense alone proves you have no business discussing the JFK case. You can't even get basic stuff right. FYI, Wecht did not concur with the single-bullet theory, did not concur that only three shots were fired (partly because he correctly insisted that Connally must have been hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back), did not concur that the residual defect could not be an additional entry wound, and did not concur that only one bullet hit the head, among other objections that he raised. Good grief, have you not read Wecht's dissent to the FPP's findings? It's in 7 HSCA 199-209.

Wecht specifically argued that the forensic evidence suggested that JFK's head may have been hit by frangible ammo, not just FMJ ammo:

A soft-nose bullet or some other type of relatively frangible ammunition that would have disintegrated upon impact could have struck the right side of JFK's head in the parietal region Inasmuch as there is a large defect of JFK's skull in this area it is not possible to rule out the existence of a separate entrance wound at the site. Since this kind of ammunition would not have penetrated deeply into the brain there would be no evidence of damage to the left cerebral hemisphere nor would there be fragments of such a missile deposited in the left side of the brain Also there would not be a separate exit wound if this kind of ammunition had been used. (7 HSCA 201)

Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches. They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.

They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he was publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.

It's truly amazing how an amateur such as yourself looking at just the few autopsy photos that were leaked to the public is able to see things that were missed by a panel of some of the most highly regarded forensic medical examiners in the country who had access to all the autopsy photos and x-rays and which were of much higher quality than those that you have seen.

This polemic again proves you don't know what you're talking about and are not to be taken seriously. I'm not sure how you have failed to grasp that I've been talking about much, much more than my own analysis of the autopsy photos. I've barely mentioned my own observations about the autopsy photos. Somehow you have missed the fact that I've cited (1) statements regarding the autopsy brain photos made by recognized experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, (2) Baden's statement to Bugliosi, (3) the accounts of several eyewitnesses who got good, close looks at JFK's brain, (4) statements by witnesses who saw brain tissue and fluid from JFK's brain splattered on numerous surfaces, (5) statements by forensic experts on the behavior of FMJ vs. frangible bullets, and (6) statements by numerous experts on the obvious conflicts between the skull x-rays and the brain photos.

There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.

You do what CTs have been doing for decades. You claim the SBT is impossible without ever explaining why you think it is impossible.

Please read just a little more carefully before you fire off your knee-jerk responses. I have never suggested for one nanosecond I thought the SBT was impossible. I believe it is problematical but could certainly be correct. Cliff Varnell always insists the alignment of the wounds and the holes in the clothing is IMPOSSIBLE, CASE CLOSED, NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT, YOU'RE JUST STUPID IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!!! My reference to Cliff was an inside joke for those who have followed his longstanding rant. But because you are a fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot, you fire off your knee-jerk fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot responses without even reading carefully. You are as whacked-out as any CTer I've ever encountered.

It is absurd to think any shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables involved. For starters, you would need to shoot the same two men who were originally shot, have them in precisely the same position they were in at the time the single bullet struck, and have the shot placed precisely where the original shot struck. Good luck with that. Any deviation is going to produce different results. Elements of the SBT can be tested and have been. We know the 6.5mm round fired by Oswald's Carcano is capable of penetrating 3 feet of pine board as demonstrated for the PBS Nova program by the father/son ballistics team of Luke and Michael Haag. The also showed that a Carcano bullet passing through ballistic gel simulating human flesh will predictably tumble upon exit. This explains why the nose of the bullet was not severely damaged because it was the base of the bullet which was flattened.

You aren't focusing on plausibility when you expect a shooting to be perfectly replicated.

Yes, but that is also true with the SBT, as I have pointed out many times even when wearing my full LN regalia. Those who insist on the SBT pretend to a level of certainty that simply isn't possible. I was impressed myself by the pine board, but that really bears no resemblance to bone impact. The alignment of the back wound and throat wound and the holes in the clothing are a puzzle, hence the "bunched clothing" argument. ("They aren't a puzzle - they are IMPOSSIBLE!" shrieks Cliff Varnell.) Anyway, I'll await whatever the latest Orr-sponsored study says.

Below: Full LN regalia. There are several sellers on eBay. No, that's not me, for crying out loud.

   Do You know for a Fact that this car was Not Impounded?  Please inform this Forum as to what has led you to claim this car was Not Impounded.

As is your SOP, you try to shift the burden of proof to others to disprove your unfounded claims. You make so many ridiculous assumptions and expect everyone else to disprove them. You have assumed the car in question was a getaway car with no evidence that it was. You have assumed the DPD had a keen interest in this car with no evidence that they did. Now you expect me to prove they did not impound the car. Do I need to prove other cars in and around Dealey Plaza were not impounded. You have done nothing to establish this car was a getaway car nor have you established the DPD showed an interest in this car. I have no burden to disprove something you have never proven. I can simply dismiss your claims as another in a long line of baseless conspiracy theories.

If the DPD knew that, why didn't they impound it?

   Do You know for a Fact that this car was Not Impounded?  Please inform this Forum as to what has led you to claim this car was Not Impounded.