JFK Assassination Forum

The point is that Dr. Thomas is a scientist, someone trained in scientific methodology and analysis. 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.

The late Dr. Thomas was way more serious-looking than me, I'll give him that: https://unsm-ento.unl.edu/workers/DThomas.htm. On top of which, his investigative responsibilities involved "host associations of cattle fever ticks in the permanent quarantine zone along the Texas-Mexico border." I will admit, what I know about cattle fever ticks could be comfortably written on a cattle fever tick if you could get the silly beast to sit still. He "also developed expertise in the taxonomy of stink bugs (Pentatomidae), the bionomics of livestock insects, and the ecology of desert tenebrionids." If this were not enough, "An avocational interest in the Scarabaeidae resulted in avid collecting and becoming an aficionado of scarab beetle diversity." We do have that in common - I'm kind of a scarab beetle sort myself.

"The point is that [Dr. Payette] is a [lawyer], someone trained in [the evaluation of evidence] and analy[tical thinking]." See how that works? Everyone is an expert. (Because a JD degree is a "Juris Doctor," some lawyers actually do refer to themselves as Dr., which other lawyers find highly comical. Some, like Kevin Hofeling, who is no longer even a lawyer, insist on using "Esq." as though they were 18th Century barristers.)

I see you're still allowing eyewitnesses to confuse you about what really happened.

Your hero and mine, John Orr, has the first shot at Z204 and JFK's first reactions at Z205. He notes that the HSCA photographic panel agreed JFK was reacting to a "severe external stimulus" by Z207. This would dovetail nicely with the recollections of the women along Elm just to the east of the Stemmons sign, who all said the first shot occurred when JFK was "right in front" of them. It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a stretch to give credence to women who were standing mere feet from JFK and who said the first shot occurred when he was "right in front" of them. The fallibility of eyewitness testimony doesn't require us to think these women were actually all drunk and staring at their iPhones.

I really don't understand your obstinancy on this. Oswald was a very visible Pro-Castro Guy in the hotbed of New Orleans long before the JFKA.

In New Orleans. Not in Dallas. Do you have any reason to believe anybody in New Orleans knew or cared about Oswald's whereabouts once he left that city?

We don't know what contacts he may have made in the pro-Castro community or the anti-Castro-posing-as-pro-Castro community.

Don't you think that is an important thing to establish if you  are going to theorize that he conspired with one of those groups to kill JFK.

JFK's trip to Dallas was announced even before he went to MC.

People knew he was coming to Dallas. BFD. You need much more specific information if you are going to set up an assassination.

In MC he reportedly said some wild-and-crazy things. We don't know what contacts he may have made there. It is not at all implausible that he would have been on the radar screen of anyone, up to and including Marcello's guys, long in advance of the JFKA. There was going to be a hit on JFKA in Dallas, and Oswald was one of Their Guys, either as a participant or a dupe. Possible locations in Dallas were scouted before the motorcade route was finalized - hence Oswald's inquiry at the Allright Parking Garage a week before. If he was a dupe in a Mafia or anti-Castro conspiracy, the conspirators would not have cared whether he was killed in the TSBD or lived to stand trial because anything he knew - or thought he knew - pointed exactly where they wanted it to point.

For it to make any sense for any of the aforementioned groups to include Oswald in their plans, they would need to know the motorcade route and that Oswald would have access to a building along that route. The route was not announced until 11/18/1963. There is zero evidence the Mafia or any Cuban group was in contact with Oswald before or after that date. You can speculate wildly if you want but if you are going to make a compelling argument, you need some actual evidence.

There is nothing inherently implausible about this scenario. The issue is, what evidence supports it?

None whatsoever.

Gus Russo is clearly a Grade A researcher of the JFKA. I only wish he hadn't dropped from the scene and had been a little more forthcoming about his contacts with the G2 folks.

I've already asked this question. Is there a certification process for being a Grade A JFKA researcher? What are the requirements? I already got duped once by someone who had a reputation as a top-notch investigative reporter, Jack Anderson. He briefly had me convinced the assassination was a collaboration between the CIA and the Mafia who had a shared interest in getting rid of Castro. It took me a few years to figure out his story was BS and that he was a charlatan.

Your logic seems to flow backwards. You start with the unlikelihood that JFK's motorcade would pass at 11 mph directly in front of Oswald's perch - which is equally unlikely regardless of whether there was any conspiracy - and then declare it impossible that conspirators would have known this in advance. They DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW this long in advance. Once the motorcade route was announced, they realized they had indeed got extremely lucky. (We could go off on the tangent that the turn onto Elm was "arranged," but I am trying to keep this as realistic and plausible as possible.)

What reason would they have had to include Oswald in their plans prior to 11/18/1963? I find it a bit far-fetched to believe they planned to use Oswald as either the shooter or the patsy and then they the route is announced and they said, "Oh, look. The guy we hired to shoot JFK works right along the motorcade route.". It makes little sense that they would have hired Oswald for the biggest contract killing in history even after the motorcade route was announced and makes zero sense they would have had any interest in using Oswald before they knew where the motorcade was going.

The Mafia and G2 are two of the scenarios that can't simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Yes it can. It makes no sense.

They may be 100% incorrect, but they can't just be dismissed.

You seem to be trying really hard to convince yourself this is a plausible scenario.
[/quote]

  You guys from the Ed Forum have had your "grieving" period. You need to understand that the reason your cite folded was because your areas of interest are limited to a very finite group. You guys continue doing your own version of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975). You're stuck inna "time warp". The contributions and ensuing discussions on this forum break New Ground in an effort to resolve this Unsolved Murder Case. Please keep this in mind.

That is true. I searched literally EVERY permutation of Huge Gates, One Glove, Bogus Haygood, Imposter Cop, Getaway Car and Bart Kamp's Fake Lovelady for the entire history of the Ed Forum and came up completely empty. It thus would appear that Royell is indeed breaking New Ground.

MTG: Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist. He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.

He's an entomologist, an expert on insects. That doesn't make him an expert on gunshot wounds or on proper autopsy procedure.

I've already answered this argument. But, you guys just repeat the same arguments over and over and ignore counterarguments.

The point is that Dr. Thomas is a scientist, someone trained in scientific methodology and analysis. 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.

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)

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.

This is nothing more than an attempt at Appeal to Authority, except the "authority" isn't actually an authority.

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.

You're always admonishing me for disregarding eye witness accounts.

Umm, no, I've admonished you for being severely biased in your selection of which eyewitness accounts you accept and which ones you reject.

Anyone who studies the assassination will quickly see that the eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly support the conspiracy view and contradict the lone-gunman view.

Here's what the HSCA's own report said about Officer McLain:

"Subsequent to his hearing testimony, McLain stated that he believed he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order to proceed to Parkland Hospital . He said that everyone near him had their sirens on immediately.(91) Should his memory be reliable, the broadcast of the shots during the assassination would not have been over his radio, because the sound of sirens on the tape does not come until approximately 2 minutes later. The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren."

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.

I guess Dolce didn't give the WC a medical reason the SBT was impossible either.

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?

I guess I have this goofy idea that forensic medical examiners are the most qualified people to assess the evidence from a medico-legal autopsy.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

You on the other hand think a radiation oncologist is well suited for that job.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Because radiation oncologists must accurately identify tumors, organs, and surrounding healthy tissues to plan radiation fields, their training integrates radiology concepts in several ways.

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.