I've already answered this argument. But, you guys just repeat the same arguments over and over and ignore counterarguments.
That's quite ironic coming from you. You've been repeating the same myths for at least 35 years. Maybe longer. Just what have you accomplished in that time?
The point is that Dr. Thomas is a scientist, someone trained in scientific methodology and analysis.
You really don't seem to care where a person's area of expertise lies. As long as he has expertise in some field and he tells a story that fits your narrative, that's good enough for you.
He's applied those skills to the JFK case, and he's done so very expertly. For example, research done by BBN scientists from 2015 to 2018 proved that Dr. Thomas was right and that acoustical-evidence critic Dr. Ralph Linsker was wrong about the make-or-break issue of PCC testing of the Decker "Hold everything" transmission and the Fisher "I'll check it" transmission.
To you, proof means they reached a conclusion that you agree with.
On the behavior of FMJ bullets, Dr. Thomas cites Dr. Vincent DiMaio. As I know you know, because I proved it to you, Dr. DiMaio said that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of pieces after penetrating bone, that if they leave any fragments they will be few in number, and that x-rays that show numerous tiny fragments rule out FMJ ammo. In fact, just to refresh your memory, let's read again what Dr. DiMaio said on this key issue:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
Explain why a shattered FMJ bullet ended up in the limo and was found that night by the Secret Service.
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Did you catch that? (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
It is very rare for military FMJ bullets to be used in a homicide, and specifically involved in gunshot wounds to the head. The overwhelming number of gunshot homicides are committed with handguns at close range. More people are killed with bare hands and feet each year than with rifles. Only several hundred homicides are committed each year with all rifles and those using FMJ ammo are a subset of that. Those involving gunshots to the head with military FMJ ammo would be an even smaller subset. Given those figures, one has to question how many homicides Di Maio has examined in which the victim was killed by a FMJ bullet to the head fired from a rifle. It would not surprise me if the answer is zero.
Right, never mind that he cites experts in the relevant fields. You'd know that if you'd read his book.
Morever, as I've pointed out before, for decades WC defenders have been citing Dr. John Lattimer and Dr. Robert Artwohl on the forensic and wound ballistics evidence, even though Lattimer was a urologist and Artwohl was a general surgeon. You guys have cited a drummer named Steve Barber and former Dallas sheriff Jim Bowles to attack the HSCA's acoustical evidence. You guys have cited the Haags, who are downright quacks and cranks, to support the SBT.
Yet, trolls like John Corbett summarily dismiss medical evidence of multiple gunmen identified by neuroscientists, ballistics experts, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, firearms experts, medical scientists, research scientists, radiologists, etc., because they're not forensic pathologists.
Gee, imagine putting one's faith in people who are actually trained in the field they are offering opinions about. What was I thinking?
Umm, no, I've admonished you for being severely biased in your selection of which eyewitness accounts you accept and which ones you reject.
I choose to believe witnesses who can be corroborated by other forms of evidence and dismiss those who are refuted by other forms of evidence. For those who can neither be corroborated or refuted, I keep an open mind. I neither accept nor reject their accounts.
Anyone who studies the assassination will quickly see that the eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly support the conspiracy view and contradict the lone-gunman view.
That would be a compelling argument if you could corroborate the witnesses who support a conspiracy. I've never seen that done.
This is further proof that you have no business discussing the acoustical evidence. I asked you how the dictabelt could have recorded gunfire N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, if it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I asked you how the dictabelt could contain numerous striking timing-movement correlations with the recording of the test-firing in Dealey Plaza, if it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I asked you how the dictabelt could have recorded windshield distortions only when the microphone was in position to record them and never when it was not in position to record them, if the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.
And your answer to all this evidence is to cite McClain's belated story that he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order! To put it another way, you're citing a belated claim by a patrolman who changed his story when he was no longer under oath and are pretending that this somehow explains the hard scientific evidence on the dictabelt itself.
BTW, why do you suppose the NAS panel made no effort to explain the N-waves, the muzzle blasts, the muzzle-blast echoes, the interval and order of those sounds, and the windshield-distortion correlations? Humm? That's right: they didn't say a word about any of those remarkable evidences.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain the fact that the NAS panel admitted (1) that there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded sounds in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and (2) that there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern is gunfire from the grassy knoll.
Furthermore, I notice (1) that you snipped the paragraph that comes right before the one you partially quoted about McClain's claim regarding his siren, and (2) that you did not even quote the entire paragraph about McClain's belated claim, and (3) that you snipped the paragraph that follows the one you partially quoted. Humm, why did you do that? Or did you just copy and paste the statement from some lone-gunman site and not realize it was only a partial quote and was being taken out of context? Let's read what the paragraph before the one you quoted says:
Officer McLain's acknowledged actions subsequent to the assassination might explain the sound of sirens on the tape. McLain was in fact probably on Stemmons Freeway at the time Henslee noted that an unknown motorcycle appeared to have its microphone switch stuck open. McLain himself testified that following the assassination, he sped up to catch the front cars of the motorcade that had entered Stemmons Freeway en route to Parkland Hospital. In any event, it is certain he left the plaza shortly after the assassination. The cars in the motorcade had their sirens on, and this could account for the sound of the sirens increasing as McLain drew closer to them, whether he left Dealey Plaza immediately or shortly after the assassination. . . . (HSCA report, pp. 78-79)
Now let's read the rest of your quoted paragraph and the paragraph that follows it, starting with the last sentence you quoted:
The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren. Since those riding in the motorcade near Chief Curry had their sirens on, there may have been no particular need for McLain to turn his on, too. The acoustical analysis pinpointing the location of the microphone, the confirmation of the location of the motorcycle by photographs, his own testimony as to his location, and his slowing his motorcycle as it rounded the corner of Houston and Elm (as had been previously indicated by the acoustical analysis),(92) and the likelihood that McLain did not leave the plaza immediately, but lagged behind momentarily after the assassination, led the committee to conclude it was Officer McLain whose radio microphone switch was stuck open.
Further, the committee noted, it would have been highly improbable for a motorcycle on Stemmons Freeway to have received the echo patterns for the four impulses that appear on the dispatch tape. As noted in more detail below, to contend that the microphone was elsewhere carries with it the burden of explaining all that appears on the tape. . . . Similarly, those who contend it was not in Dealey Plaza must explain the sounds that indicate it was. As Aschkenasy testified, the echo patterns on the tape would only have been received by a microphone located in a physical environment with the same acoustical characteristics as Dealey Plaza.(93) It is extremely unlikely that the echo patterns on the tape, if received from elsewhere, would so closely parallel the echo patterns characteristic of Dealey Plaza. (HSCA report, p. 78)
You keep repeating the misleading, dishonest argument that Dr. Barger said there was only a 50% probability that the dictabelt contained assassination gunfire impulses, ignoring the fact that he specified this was a preliminary finding and that he said this (1) before the Queens College acoustical experts reviewed BBN's initial findings, (2) before the Dealey Plaza test firing was conducted, and (3) before the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists were able to compare the dictabelt impulses with the test-firing impulses.
You seem to favor quantity over quality in your posts. Rather than spend another hour of my time with a point-by-point refutation of your typical long winded post, I will simply point out the booger you have to deal with. There is photographic evidence that Officer McLain's motorcycle was not in the position the acoustics team determined he needed to be for their findings to be valid. There is not a scrap of forensic, medical, or photographic evidence that supports a shot from the GK, nor did any eyewitness on either side of the fence see a shooter even though there were people on both sides of the fence in position to see such a shooter and more who raced to the area following the shots who saw a gunman. Makes it kind of hard to believe the acoustical evidence that a gunman fired from the GK.
You guessed wrong. As I noted in my reply, he pointed out that the SBT wound-ballistics test, which he supervised, proved the SBT was impossible. How did you miss this?
You keep claiming these people have proven the SBT is impossible without ever telling us why they said it is impossible. That makes it kind of hard to evaluate their conclusions.
Do you really think people can't see through this dodge? You keep ignoring my counterarguments to this evasion. You keep dodging the fact that even many forensic pathologists who don't posit multiple gunmen have produced findings that destroy your version of the shooting, e.g., the FPP's documentation of the fact that the autopsy brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; the fact that the back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle, a datum that the FPP lamely tried to "explain" by assuming JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck; and the fact that the only fragment trail on the extant skull x-rays is the high fragment trail, which bears no resemblance to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.
If we are going to talk about dodges, let's talk about some of yours.
You have never tried to explain JBC's arm flip at Z226 which coincided with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms.
You have cited numerous "experts" who say the SBT was impossible without ever saying why it was impossible.
You have continued to insist that Oswald wasn't capable of making he shots that struck JFK without ever pointing to anything in his USMC record that would indicate he lacked the skills.
You have claimed a bolt action rifle can' be fired as accurately as a semi-auto rifle, even though I've pointed out that Carlos Hathcock used bolt action rifles for his long range kill shots.
This will do for starters. If you can answer these I'll move on to some more.
When I mentioned several forensic pathologists who've said the SBT is false and/or that FMJ ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, you dodged these facts with the phony argument that I didn't quote their explanations for their findings. Well, no, I'm not going to copy and paste several pages of their research for you, when you can read it yourself. The fact that you refuse to read their research says much about your bias and lack of credibility.
Once again you cite people who claim the SBT is impossible without ever saying why it is impossible. To the best of my knowledge, none of these people had access to the medical evidence. All three members of the autopsy team and all but one member of the FPP who did see the medical evidence concur with the SBT. Wecht dissented from that based not on any medical evidence but on his interpretation of what the Z-film shows and the false premise that JBC was sitting directly in front of JFK and at the same level.
When I pointed out that radiology and forensic experts consulted by the HSCA noted the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing frontal bone, you erroneously claimed that the missing frontal bone was only at the rear of the bone. You clearly still have not read John Hunt's detailed article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which I've cited to you several times.
I am under no obligation to hunt down the support for your arguments. If you have evidence of missing frontal bone other than the posterior of the bone, then post it here. I'm no going to responde to your unsupported claims because you have a habit of overstating or outright misrepresenting what the people you cite have said.
Also, Dr. Doug Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, noted that the amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos, as I've mentioned to you before. When I raised this point and his observation that the autopsy photos indicate the bullet traveled from front to back, you lamely dismissed his findings because he was "only" a forensic anthropologist.
Based on what you are claiming, I'd gladly bet this clown is not a radiologist and is referring to the frontal x-ray and claiming there is bone missing from around the eye socket. I've seen people misinterpret that x-ray in the past. When I was a CT, I was duped by that x-ray as well.
That won't work because when the FPP wanted help with reconstructing the skull wounds with the skull fragments, they asked a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Lawrence Angel, for assistance, and Dr. Angel's diagrams show the missing frontal bone extending more than halfway into the frontal bone from the rear edge of the bone and clearly near where the hairline was. This is another serious problem with the autopsy photos of the head.
I'd love to see that diagram. That is completely inconsistent with the leaked autopsy photos that shoe the area of his forehead and hairline to be intact. We do see a skull flap on the upper right side of his head. I lack the expertise to say whether that flap is or is not from the frontal bone.
Dr. Mantik was eminently qualified to perform OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives, and he found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered--he was even able to duplicate how the alteration was done. And, Dr. Chesser, a neurologist who examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives and who also examined JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston, did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding.
Claiming and proving are not the same thing. Funny how no one on the FPP claimed the x-rays were tampered with.
As I've pointed out to you several times now, a forensic pathologist will usually not be an expert in ballistics, radiology, and physics, much less OD measurement and analysis. Yet, you keep repeating your flimsy dodge that we should ignore all forensic-related findings made by ballistics experts, physicists, neurologists, neuroscientists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, etc., because they're not forensic pathologists.
Forensic pathologists are specifically trained to examine bodies of victims of homicides to the precise cause of their wounds. Which of these other disciplines are so trained?
I see you're still repeating the falsehood that radiation oncologists are not trained in reading x-rays. Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, himself a radiation oncologist, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the skull x-rays:
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. (Front matter in Dr. Mantik's book JFK Assassination Paradoxes) [/quote]
Have either Henkelmann or Mantik ever examined the victim of a gunshot wound to the head. I think we both no the answer to that.
.
If you Google the question "How much training do radiation oncologists get in radiology?", here's the answer you will get (note: nuclear medicine is a specialized area of radiology):
Radiation oncologists typically complete a 1-month formal rotation in diagnostic imaging or nuclear medicine during their 4-year radiation oncology residency. While this is the minimum formal requirement, they receive heavy, daily exposure to oncologic imaging throughout their training to master CT, MRI, and PET scans for precise tumor targeting.
There you have it. They are trained in dealing with tumors, not gunshot wounds.
Because radiation oncologists must accurately identify tumors, organs, and surrounding healthy tissues to plan radiation fields, their training integrates radiology concepts in several ways.[/font]
But no training or experience int dealing with gunshot wounds.
In short, most radiation oncologists are not full-fledged radiologists, but they receive considerable training in radiology. If a radiation oncologist becomes interested in a gunshot case, especially if he does some reading in forensic science (as Dr. Mantik has done), he can apply his expertise to reading the x-rays of the gunshot victim, and, crucially, he can do OD measurements of the alleged/identified bullet fragments in the x-rays to determine if they're actually metallic fragments and to determine their density/thickness, which is something that few forensic pathologists can do.
And, again, while he was working as a radiation oncologist, i.e., before he retired, Dr. Mantik was licensed in radiology.
Let me see you prove that.
Recent Posts