Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 03:37:18 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 03:28:58 PM
Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:

I don't speak for other LNs but my guess is they don't care about your perceived problems any more than I do.
32
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 03:28:58 PM »
Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:

One, the autopsy doctors committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that started a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) lower, (2) that was in a different bone of the skull (parietal vs. occipital), and (3) that ran at a downward angle instead of an upward angle from the back of the head, even though they had the EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the lambda as reference points (keep in mind they reflected the scalp so they could examine the wound in the skull). A first-year medical student would not make such a mind-boggling blunder.

Two, the autopsy doctors saw no low fragment trail. They saw no trail that ran from the EOP to the right eyebrow but falsely said they did (1) because they wanted to strengthen the case for the EOP entry site, (2) because the high fragment trail did not align with the EOP site, and (3) because there was no wound on the back of the head that they could associate with the high fragment trail.

Three, the low fragment trail was removed from the autopsy x-rays, or its fragments were removed from the skull and the skull was then x-rayed again, because some of the people involved in the medical cover-up recognized that the low fragment trail, like the EOP entry site, would pose unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory.

I lean toward the third option. The third option would explain the 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm fragments seen near the right orbit on the right lateral skull x-ray. Those fragments are far removed from the high fragment trail. There are no fragments below them or to their left on the lateral x-ray, and they are at least 1 inch below the high fragment trail. How did they get there? They could be the remnant of the low fragment trail, which Humes said went to a point at the top part of the right orbit (the supraorbital ridge).

At least some WC apologists understand that it is wildly unlikely that three pathologists, one of whom was a board-certified forensic pathologist, could have mistaken an EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail for the high fragment trail when they examined the lateral skull x-rays, especially since they reexamined the skull x-rays in 1966 for five hours and said the x-rays and the photos confirmed the autopsy report's findings.

But, WC apologists also don't want to consider the possibility that the autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail, and they of course know that the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, and that they again said nothing about it after they reexamined the skull x-rays for five hours in 1966.

Yet, WC apologists find even more acceptable the possibility that the low fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays and/or from the skull itself.   
33
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Did G-2 Encourage LHO to Perp the JFKA?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:25:22 PM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 09:52:48 AM
SMG-

Thanks for your comments.

To be sure, mere reporters and authors, without incarceration, investigative and subpoena powers, can only say for certain so much. Russo is careful to say what he has learned, and to not go beyond that.

What Russo learned is that Oswald was the assassin, which was quite easy, and that he could find no evidence Oswald acted on behalf of any other individuals or groups.

Like so many CTs who have gone before, you are willing to simply assume others were involved there being no credible evidence of co-conspirators.
34
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:19:28 PM »
If MTG wants to argue that the frontal neck wound is an entrance wound, he needs to explain why there are two entrance wounds, no exit wounds, and no bullets found in the body. If he can't do that, there is no point in even discussing the other issues he has raised.

My guess is he will simply do what he always does when confronted with inconvenient truths. He will simply dodge the question and move on to other silly arguments.
35
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The bones of the skull
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:19 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:56:15 PM
IOW, you don't have the character or the maturity to just admit you royally goofed.

You're projecting again. You said (1) that the FPP identified a piece of skull missing from the frontal bone, and (2) that the area of missing frontal bone goes nowhere near the hairline but is limited to a small part of the rear area of the frontal bone. 

Both claims are demonstrably false, not to mention inexcusable. The FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone; [/quote]

Please quote this denial. The FPP did not try to piece together the skull fragments and were largely silent on the matter. They did include both McDonnel's and Angel's reports in their records, reports which you cited to bolster one of your silly arguments and now want to walk away from. their wound diagrams show the frontal bone intact from the hairline back to the coronal suture, with no missing skull fragments. In doing so, the FPP ignored all of their own expert consultants who described a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and even ignored Dr. Angel's diagrams showing that the triangular fragment was frontal bone and that it extended nearly to the hairline.

The FPP could not admit that a sizable chunk of frontal bone is in the skull x-rays missing because the autopsy photos of the face show the area behind and in front of the hairline to be intact. There's not even a hint of a loss of structure there. That's a physical impossibility if the skull x-rays are accurate. At the very least, the top of the forehead and the area right behind the hairline should show some visible degree of depression/indentation. This is why Dr. Ubelaker "noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos."
Quote

You seem to be impeaching Angel's report which you have cited in the past. Angel is the only one who said the missing frontal bone was near the hairline. McDonnel said it was from the posterior of the frontal bone and the FPP was largely silent on the issue. So which one of the doctors whom you have cited in the past are you now throwing under the bus, Angel or McDonnel?
36
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: A Few of the Problems with the Case Against Oswald
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 01:58:02 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:13:39 PM
I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:

. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)

Which means it has been rejected by the rest.

Even those that have accepted polygraphs have restrictions on its use. In Ohio, it can be admitted only if both sides of the proceeding agree to accept it before the test is administered. Even then the judge has the discretion to disallow it. Polygraphs have never been proven to be reliable indicators of a person's truthfulness. They produce false positives and false negatives. Polygraphs measure stress. An innocent person can feel stress just taking the test while a cold-blooded killer might not feel any stress at all. In addition, a liar who is unaware that his voice is being tested, like Oswald, would have no reason to feel stress while lying.
37
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The bones of the skull
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:56:15 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 27, 2026, 12:21:04 PM
This is starting to remind me of the final scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

IOW, you don't have the character or the maturity to just admit you royally goofed. You said (1) that the FPP identified a piece of skull missing from the frontal bone, and (2) that the area of missing frontal bone goes nowhere near the hairline but is limited to a small part of the rear area of the frontal bone. 

Both claims are demonstrably false, not to mention inexcusable. The FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone; their wound diagrams show the frontal bone intact from the hairline back to the coronal suture, with no missing skull fragments. In doing so, the FPP ignored all of their own expert consultants who described a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and even ignored Dr. Angel's diagrams showing that the triangular fragment was frontal bone and that it extended nearly to the hairline.

The FPP could not admit that a sizable chunk of frontal bone is in the skull x-rays missing because the autopsy photos of the face show the area behind and in front of the hairline to be intact. There's not even a hint of a loss of structure there. That's a physical impossibility if the skull x-rays are accurate. At the very least, the top of the forehead and the area right behind the hairline should show some visible degree of depression/indentation. This is why Dr. Ubelaker "noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos."

Dr. David Mantik:

The HSCA skull reconstruction: The frontal bone (yellow arrow) is intact here, in gross disagreement with Angel—and also in disagreement with the skull X-rays.

The HSCA’s mistake (relied upon by Baden—quite possibly even initiated by him) was its opinion that frontal bone was fully intact immediately anterior to the coronal suture (Figure 4). That opinion can be refuted via the following items: (1) the AP skull X-ray (Figure 10), (2) optical density (OD) data from the AP X-ray (Figure 11—my sketch of absent frontal bone), (3) Boswell’s skull diagram for the ARRB (Figure 12), (4) Boswell’s sketch from the autopsy (Figure 13), and (5) the opinion of the ARRB forensic radiologist, John J. Fitzpatrick: showDoc.html (maryferrell.org). The AP X-ray also clearly shows where right frontal bone was missing (even though Baden oddly claimed that it was present). . . .

Figure 11 shows missing right frontal bone, a conclusion that is based on OD data that I took at the Archives. Boswell’s sketch for the ARRB also shows missing frontal bone. Furthermore, notice the close agreement (regarding the missing frontal bone) between my sketch (Figure 11) and Boswell’s sketches (Figures 12 and 13). He did one (Figure 12) for the ARRB, while the other one (Figure 13) was prepared at the autopsy. . . .

That missing frontal bone is quite obvious on the x-rays (and even on Boswell’s sketches); even Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist, disagreed with Baden’s reconstruction. . . .

HSCA Exhibit F-66 [Baden's reconstruction] shows the frontal bone intact all the way back to the coronal suture. . . .

The coronal suture would, of course, fit with Lawrence Angel’s view that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. It would also be consistent with Fitzpatrick’s (and my) conclusion that right frontal bone was missing all the way to JFK’s hairline. . . . . . .

RR [following Baden] places the triangular fragment into the right parietal area. But it cannot fit there. In particular, I have demonstrated, with detailed reconstructions via successive iterations of fluoroscopy images, exactly where bone islands lie on both the AP and lateral JFK X-rays. RR's proposed site for the triangular fragment is already occupied by two significant bone islands, and simply cannot accommodate another large bone fragment. That is a powerful reason—independent of Angel—that the triangular fragment must derive from frontal bone. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, pp. 7, 15-16, 56, 96, 151-152)

When you say "I don't have to explain the medical evidence," what you really mean, but won't admit, is that you can't explain the glaring, incriminating contradictions in the medical evidence.

38
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 01:47:54 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 01:22:28 PM
No assumption at all. I take the evidence at face value and examine the rest of the evidence ce to see if there is other evidence that conflicts with it. I reject it only if there is a good reason ie. other evidence that conflicts with it. I don't assume that it is wrong because it is a human witness like you do.

Unless you were there, how would you know? Those who were there - like Mary Woodward, John Templin,Ernest Brandt, Tina Towner, Linda Willis, Rosemary Willis, Bob Jackson and others who made Living History contributions to the Sixth Floor Museum - would say otherwise.

The best evidence we have is the Z-film and any witness statement that conflicts with that should be dismissed. Because won't do that, you reach the ridiculous conclusion that JBC wasn't hit until Z270 and that the reason his is doubled over and dipping hard to his right is because he was trying to see JFK. I suppose you could have come up with a sillier interpretation of the Z-film, but it is hard to imagine how.
39
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 01:22:28 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 03:38:31 AM
Once again you make the foolish mistake of assuming what a witness has said is an established fact. You'll never figure out the JFKA as long as you have that mindset.
No assumption at all. I take the evidence at face value and examine the rest of the evidence ce to see if there is other evidence that conflicts with it. I reject it only if there is a good reason ie. other evidence that conflicts with it. I don't assume that it is wrong because it is a human witness like you do.

Quote
There's no reason to think the position of the car would have been "seared into their memories for life".

Unless you were there, how would you know? Those who were there - like Mary Woodward, John Templin,Ernest Brandt, Tina Towner, Linda Willis, Rosemary Willis, Bob Jackson and others who made Living History contributions to the Sixth Floor Museum - would say otherwise.
40
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: A Few of the Problems with the Case Against Oswald
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:13:39 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on June 19, 2026, 08:52:13 PM
Just a bit more about MTG's hero, George O'Toole. He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was a CIA computer specialist for less than three years during the period 1966-69. He became a freelance author and wrote some fairly successful books, including a supernatural spy novel in which a deceased Russian spy reveals secrets through a psychic medium. He became a gung-ho CTer. His principal CT-oriented book, The Assassination Tapes, was reviewed thusly in Polygraph, the journal of the American Polygraph Association (Vol. 6, No. 1, March 1977):[SNIP]

I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:

. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)

You can find plenty of "scientific research" that says that the traditional polygraph, the "Psychophysiological Detection of Deception" (PDD) polygraph, i.e., the test where they put wires on you, is "subjective," "unreliable," "unsound," etc. Similarly, you can find, as you have done, studies that make the same claim about the VSA/PSE polygraph. PDD and VSA/PSE polygraph defenders argue that the there are questions about the methods and objectivity of the anti-polygraph studies, and that some of the people involved with those studies harbored a strong bias against the use of any kind of lie-detection device. 

I happen to know from my many years in military intelligence that at least two U.S. intelligence agencies use the VSA/PSE polygraph for in-person and remote lie detection/truth evaluation. Some police departments also use it. Police detectives in Sanford, Florida, used it in the George Zimmerman case in 2013, and the evidence indicates it was reliable.

I encourage interested readers to read O'Toole's chapter and appendix, totaling 30 pages, on the reliability of the VSA/PSE polygraph.

Finally, a word about George O'Toole himself. As usual, since O'Toole reached the conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, Lance Payette seeks to minimize his qualifications, describing him as "a CIA computer specialist." Actually, he was a bit more than a computer specialist, although that in itself is a valid, relevant qualification. O'Toole served as the chief of the CIA's Problem Analysis Branch. He specialized in ways to use electronic information processing technology to solve issues in intelligence analysis. After leaving the CIA, he worked with NASA and on a variety of defense projects for a number of years. This was all before he wrote The Assassination Tapes, which is a serious, credible work on the JFK case (of course, Payette doesn't like it because it presents evidence he doesn't want to believe--and, again, I'd bet good money that he hasn't even read it).


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10