JFK Assassination Forum

MG: No, welcome to the John Corbett and Lance Payette Dissembling and Evasion Hour.

Was Dr. David O. Davis an amateur? Was Dr. Lawrence Angel an amateur? Was Dr. Fred Hodges an amateur? Was Dr. Doug Ubelaker an amateur? Was Dr. John Fitzpatrick an amateur? Was Dr. Robert Kirschner an amateur? Was Dr. Vincent DiMaio an amateur? Was Dr. Forrest Chapman an amateur? All of these experts presented findings that invalidate your version of the shooting, but you ignore this fact and continue to dishonestly pretend that I am merely giving my own opinions.

JC: Dr. Vincent Di Maio is not your friend. He believes JFK was shot in the back of the head and that there was not a second missile that struck his head.

First off, I notice you said nothing about Dr. David O. Davis, Dr. Lawrence Angel, Dr. Fred Hodges, Dr. Doug Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, and Dr. Robert Kirschner, all of whom have presented findings that contradict your version of the assassination. Many more names could be added to the list.

Anyway, I take it you're going to continue to dodge the fact that DiMaio said FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of fragments and that x-rays that show dozens of tiny fragments rule out FMJ ammo? Let me quote DiMaio yet again on the behavior of FMJ bullets:

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)

Notice two crucial points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" lead fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.

DiMaio did not do an in-depth analysis of the JFK case. If he had, he would not have missed the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show a snowstorm of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, the very kind of fragmentation that DiMaio said would never be produced by an FMJ bullet.

Incidentally, are you aware that toward the end of his life, DiMaio changed his mind about his earlier endorsement of the SBT? DiMaio was not a long-time student of the JFK case. His review of the case was somewhat superficial, certainly not in-depth. Only after DiMaio began to dialogue with pro-conspiracy medical scientist Russell Kent did DiMaio become aware of the problems that the medical evidence poses for the single-assassin scenario. Kent convinced, or helped to convince, DiMaio that the SBT is problematic. Kent's 2022 book JFK Medical Betrayal: Where The Evidence Lies is one of the best analyses of the JFK medical evidence ever published.

Dr. E. Forrest Chapman is a forensic pathologist but you have cited his opinions of CE543 in a field in which he is not a professional. Why do you cite the opinions of experts outside their field of expertise?

Huh? So a forensic pathologist who examined hundreds of bullets recovered from bodies was not qualified to comment on CE 543's condition? Really?

Dr. Chapman examined CE 543 at the National Archives and then conducted his own experiments to determine if a shell dented to this degree could fire a bullet. Not one of the shells in his tests emerged as deeply dented as CE 543.

Dr. Chapman also noted that CE 543 has a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the shell, and that only empty cases exhibit such characteristics. Dr. Chapman's findings agreed with those of the FBI, as CE 557 proves. CE 557 is a test shell that the FBI fired empty from the alleged murder weapon for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and a deep primer impression similar to CE 543.

MG: Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? Why doesn't it appear on the extant JFK autopsy skull x-rays? Why didn't the autopsy doctors say anything about the high fragment trail that is so obvious on the extant skull x-rays? Did they just "miss" it?! I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

JC: I defer to the unanimous opinion of the FPP which is the medical evidence indicates JFK was shot in the back of the head. I'm not silly enough to think I can offer a more compelling opinion base on the few low grade photos and x-rays that have been leaked to the public. You, on the other hand, seem to have no qualms about doing that.

This is a dishonest, unserious dodge. No one is disputing that a bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. The critical issue is the location of the rear head entry wound and the location of the resulting fragment trail. The FPP simply ducked the issue of the vanishing fragment trail, ignored their own radiology consultants' observations about the high fragment trail's relationship to the phantom cowlick entry site, ducked the issue of how three pathologists could have missed the high fragment trail or mistook it for the vanishing EOP-to-right-orbit trail described in the autopsy report, and declined to cite a single example of an FMJ bullet that had deposited a sizable fragment at the entry site.

MG: Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining how the three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist and the chief medical photographer at the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound that was above the lambda and the lambdoid suture, for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm (3.93 inches) lower and only 1 cm above the EOP? Hey? I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

JC: I can take a stab at it based on the limited amount of autopsy evidence I have seen and given that I am no expert in forensic pathology. Once the bullet tore through JFK's skull, his head ceased to be a solid object. It was a collection of bone fragments held together by flaps of scalp. I can certainly understand how pathologists inexperienced in forensic medicine could mislocate the point of entry. One of Dr. Cyril Wecht's objections to their work is that they didn't take their measurements from standard points of reference.

Even the FPP majority did not float this absurd argument. The head was not nearly as damaged as you are describing, unless you are going to say that all three of the autopsy morticians were blind or lying--not the pathologists, but the morticians, the guys who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy. For that matter, even the autopsy photos do not show the skull as damaged as you are describing. Indeed, as you should know, the autopsy photos show the back of the head intact. 

When it came to the rear head entry wound, the autopsy pathologists did use a standard point of reference: the EOP. To believe the FPP and the Clark Panel, one must believe that the autopsy pathologists somehow, someway committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking a wound above the lambda and the lambdoid suture for wound 10 cm lower, 1 cm above the EOP.   

Far be it from me to defend the autopsy doctors, but Finck was a board-certified forensic pathologist who had considerable experience with gunshot wound cases. He certainly would have been able to distinguish between a wound 1 cm above the EOP and a wound above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. Humes was no forensic pathologist, but he was board-certified in anatomic pathology, so he, too, certainly would have seen the difference between a wound 1 cm above the EOP and a wound above the lambda and the lambdoid suture.

MG: Are you ever going to venture a guess as to how a bullet that struck at the Clark Panel-HSCA FPP entry site could have created a fragment trail that started 5 cm above the site and at least 2 cm to the right of the site? How does that work? Top it off, how could this same bullet, supposedly an FMJ bullet, have deposited a large fragment, two smaller fragments, and several tiny fragments 1 cm below the alleged entry site? Huh? How does that work? Tell us. Let's hear it. I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

JC: A guess is all I can offer. It's all you can offer also. Neither of us has any expertise in the field of forensic pathology. Only one of us thinks his guess is more credible than the unanimous opinion of the FPP.

Another flimsy dodge. The FPP made no effort to explain these problems. Indeed, thanks to Baden, the FPP simply ignored the observations of their own radiology consultants when it came to the high fragment trail's relationship with the cowlick entry site, i.e., the fact that the trail starts 5 cm above the cowlick site and 2 cm to the right of it.

And the only thing the FPP said about the large presumed fragment located 1 cm below the cowlick site, i.e., the 6.5 mm object, was that it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit such a fragment at the entry point. Yeah, that was putting it mildly. Revealingly, the FPP declined to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had ever done this, and no one has yet been able to cite such a case.

Of course, now we know from multiple optical-density measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is an image that was ghosted over a somewhat smaller genuine metal fragment 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size and over some much smaller fragments next to the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. 

MG: And on and on we could go. The plain fact of the matter is that you and Lance Payette have no clue how to explain any of these facts.

JC: Neither do you but that doesn't stop you from pontificating as if you have expertise in these various fields.

One, these facts pose no problem for my theory of the shooting, but they destroy yours. Two, I have a whole lot more expertise than you do in these fields. I've been studying them for years. Three, I have already explained these facts. Four, many medical and ballistics experts, along with some physicists and research scientists, have discussed the problems that these facts pose for any single-assassin theory, including Dr. Roger McCarthy, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Halbert Fillinger, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Arthur G. Haas, Dr. Art Snyder, and (later in his life) Dr. Cyril Wecht.
 

I don't agree with Lance a lot [pun intended] but I do agree CTs aren't very good at dealing logically with the evidence. They don't try to explain the evidence. They make up excuses to explain the evidence away.

This is exactly what you do, and exactly what you have done in this thread. I have explained and documented the nature and implications of the contradictions between the autopsy report and the autopsy skull x-rays, between the autopsy brain photos and the autopsy skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the autopsy photos of the head, etc., etc. In response, you have done little else but duck and dodge. When you haven't ducked and dodged, you've lamely appealed to the FPP as the final authority, ignoring the problems with the FPP's work and ignoring the fact that the FPP themselves hammered on the contradictions between the autopsy report and the autopsy brain photos and between the autopsy report and the autopsy skull x-rays. 

That's why they are never able to present any actual evidence that anybody but Oswald took part in the assassination.

You sound like a Flat Earther claiming that no one has presented any actual evidence that the Earth is round. You have no idea what evidence WC critics have presented because you've read almost none of their research.

And you might want to keep in mind that you are in the minority among Americans and Europeans on the JFK case, whereas I am in the majority.

The best they can do is attack the findings of the WC with their amateurish opinions in fields which require a high level of expertise which they don't possess.

LOL! You bet. I guess you're forgetting that the HSCA "attacked the findings of the WC" and concluded (1) that the WC failed to follow up on valid leads that pointed to conspiracy, (2) that two gunmen were involved, (3) that a shot came from the grassy knoll, (4) that the damning Silvia Odio account is credible, (5) that Ruby had significant Mafia ties and lied about how and why he shot Oswald, etc., etc. I guess you're also forgetting that three of the seven members of the WC "attacked the findings of the WC." I guess you're also forgetting that WC staffer Wesley Liebeler said the WC's portrayal of Oswald's marksmanship and his alleged shooting feat was "simply dishonest."

Lance, I happened to be reading some threads there earlier this week and that Niederhut fella is one of the nuttiest personalities I've ever seen! Could you imagine being that guy's patient and not knowing what he was really up to in the Internet in his spare time?

What does that mean?  "Fraud ballot"?  California mails ballots to everyone and allows someone else to return those ballots without limitation on the number.  Anyone can go to a college campus or minority community and collect a mass of ballots and then cast them on behalf of the voters.  That is ballet harvesting.  They don't monitor, enforce, or restrict this practice.  They encourage it.

again so what?
at a 0.0003% and 0.0025% fraud rate

They are signed off and processed. - There are no magical ballots appearing

There is no massive dump of fraud ballots Republicans complain about.

What does that mean?  "Fraud ballot"?  California mails ballots to everyone and allows someone else to return those ballots without limitation on the number.  Anyone can go to a college campus or minority community and collect a mass of ballots and then cast them on behalf of the voters.  That is ballet harvesting.  They don't monitor, enforce, or restrict this practice.  They encourage it.

The only voter fraud that gets counted are the ones that get caught. We really don't know how big the problem is. Dems complain the efforts to make voter fraud more difficult will disenfranchise voters. What about the voter who gets disenfranchised because his vote gets cancelled out by someone voting illegally.

There is no massive dump of fraud ballots Republicans complain about.
Is 0.0003% and 0.0025% fraud not tight enough?