Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments  (Read 28877 times)

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1210
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #96 on: March 11, 2023, 03:02:58 AM »
Advertisement
I see now. With regard to the shoulders of Connally, it appears this is how I showed Connally's torso (neutral) in Croft and repeated it in the Z195 model. I don't see it being a big deal. I will probably rotate the shoulders similar to Myers' version for Z193 and allow for a part of the shoulder ball to project back over the seatback, as Myers has done.
I can't tell if you have JBC turned enough in your recreation of frame z195 (the view from Zapruder's position) because the resolution is not sufficient.  But it looks very similar to his position in z193.

If so, you don't have to change anything in your model. Just rotate the view so we can see the two men up close from overhead and from the SN.

Quote
Your amount of rotation, shown (left-inset) in the graphic following, is ridiculous.
In my model the shoulders are over-rotated in order to get the lower back turned. But the bullet from the SN through JFK's midline passes just over the back of the jump seat which is well below the shoulder level.
..

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #96 on: March 11, 2023, 03:02:58 AM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #97 on: December 04, 2023, 01:04:57 PM »
Just giving this thread a bump to reinforce the point that lone-gunman theorists have no even halfway credible/believable explanation for the two bullet fragments in the very back of JFK's skull. Their own leading wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the ammo that Oswald allegedly used would not and could not have deposited bullet fragments in or near the rear outer table of the skull, especially given the fact that the nose and tail of the supposed lone-gunman head-shot bullet were found in the limousine, which means that any fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section.

I devote an entire chapter to this issue in my book A Comforting Lie.

I also address it in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view).
« Last Edit: December 04, 2023, 01:05:54 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 881
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #98 on: December 04, 2023, 03:13:46 PM »
Just giving this thread a bump to reinforce the point that lone-gunman theorists have no even halfway credible/believable explanation for the two bullet fragments in the very back of JFK's skull. Their own leading wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the ammo that Oswald allegedly used would not and could not have deposited bullet fragments in or near the rear outer table of the skull, especially given the fact that the nose and tail of the supposed lone-gunman head-shot bullet were found in the limousine, which means that any fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section.

I devote an entire chapter to this issue in my book A Comforting Lie.

I also address it in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view).
Everything that u have ever said about anything has been complete krapp.
The lead fragments in xray in jfk's galea were from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet offa the guy rod of the overhead signals at Z105.
The 2 brass fragments of the jacket   were from Oswald's shot-1.
My comments on threads are 100% correct.
Your comments are 100% wrong.
The fragments in galea do not & can not sink the LNer theory.
The LNer theory is sunk by other facts/evidence, but it aint sunk by the galea fragments.
SHHEEEESHHHHHHHHHHH.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2023, 03:45:22 PM by Marjan Rynkiewicz »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #98 on: December 04, 2023, 03:13:46 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #99 on: December 04, 2023, 04:47:33 PM »
Everything that u have ever said about anything has been complete krapp.
The lead fragments in xray in jfk's galea were from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet offa the guy rod of the overhead signals at Z105.
The 2 brass fragments of the jacket   were from Oswald's shot-1.
My comments on threads are 100% correct.
Your comments are 100% wrong.
The fragments in galea do not & can not sink the LNer theory.
The LNer theory is sunk by other facts/evidence, but it aint sunk by the galea fragments.
SHHEEEESHHHHHHHHHHH.

Only one of the back-of-head fragments was in the galea (the McDonnel fragment).

I believe I've explained to you before the various problems with your guy-rod-deflection theory, such as the fact (1) that the angle of fire would have been virtually straight down, (2) that no gunman would have fired when an obstruction was near his target in his field of view, and (3) that JFK shows no signs of reaction until long after your posited guy-rod-deflection shot.

I do agree with you that the galea fragment could only have come from a ricochet fragment, but that fragment could not have come from a bullet fired at Z105. The lone-gunman theory has no bullet that could have produced such a ricochet fragment.

The Hickey-shot theory is nearly as problematic as the lone-gunman theory. No one who was in Hickey's car, including Powers and O'Donnell, heard Hickey fire a single shot. Have you ever heard an AR-15 fired? I have. The other occupants in the car would have heard Hickey fire a shot, if he had fired one. Plus, Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2023, 06:38:01 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 881
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #100 on: December 04, 2023, 11:31:54 PM »
Only one of the back-of-head fragments was in the galea (the McDonnel fragment).

I believe I've explained to you before the various problems with your guy-rod-deflection theory, such as the fact (1) that the angle of fire would have been virtually straight down, (2) that no gunman would have fired when an obstruction was near his target in his field of view, and (3) that JFK shows no signs of reaction until long after your posited guy-rod-deflection shot.

I do agree with you that the galea fragment could only have come from a ricochet fragment, but that fragment could not have come from a bullet fired at Z105. The lone-gunman theory has no bullet that could have produced such a ricochet fragment.

The Hickey-shot theory is nearly as problematic as the lone-gunman theory. No one who was in Hickey's car, including Powers and O'Donnell, heard Hickey fire a single shot. Have you ever heard an AR-15 fired? I have. The other occupants in the car would have heard Hickey fire a shot, if he had fired one. Plus, Hickey's ammo was checked and accounted for after the shooting.
My calculation of Oswald's angles based on above is .....
Shot-1 at Z113 is -34.8 deg. If at Holland's Z106 it is still -34.8 deg koz either way it is at the signals.
Shot-2 at Z218 is -21.0 deg.
Shot-3 at Z312 is -16.6 deg (but there was no Oswald shot-3).
So, how is 34.8 deg "straight down"?
34.8 deg is only 13.8 deg more than shot-2's 21.0 deg!

Kellerman heard jfk say my god i am hit at say pseudo Z120.
And Towner footage shows jfk with his right hand high up near his head (ie possibly reacting to getting hit in the galea) at about Z113. Alltho i suppose that jfk sometimes held his right hand hi up when waving.

Re the galea fragment, i thort that the xray showed a number of fragments in galea. But i have not spent time trying to understand the xrays. I simply quote others. Certainly u know more than me re xray stuff.
Are u referring to the 6.5 mm circular fragment? Its strange that this is the same dia as a Carcano slug. I believe that it is possible to get a Carcano bullet that has a brass end on the tail of the slug (in addition to having a brass jacket), in which case if that brass-end tears off (ie due to ricochet) then it could give that kind of fragment.

I did see a target board that showed how a Carcano ricochet off pipe gave 3 angles. Remnant slug took one angle. 2 brass halves of FMJ took another angle. And lead splatter took another angle.
All of which confirms a ricochet off the signal arm or guy-rod.
All of which confirms CE567 & CE569 (2 brass halves)(FMJ is made in 2 halves fused together to receive the lead).
All of which confirms xray splatter in galea.
But i cant find that photo of the target board. I think it is in the NOVA youtube. Would cost me $4 to do a screenprint.

That Hickey fired an autoburst is a certainty. That SS Agents etc in Queen Mary heard it is a certainty. That they lied is a certainty (except that Powers did not lie)(Powers chose his words carefully, he merely said that if Hickey fired then Powers would have heard the shot(s), which is a fact, but the inference that Hickey did not shoot is of course a lie).

Re the sound of an AR15. I wonder whether a 12 gauge shotgun is louder. I have done a bit of duck & rabbit shooting with shotguns.
http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2002-0131-2898.pdf

Anyhow, not only did Hickey shoot a president out of season without a permit (he should have forfeited his AR15) , but he was not wearing earmuffs (he should have been fired from the SS).
« Last Edit: December 05, 2023, 12:12:12 AM by Marjan Rynkiewicz »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #100 on: December 04, 2023, 11:31:54 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #101 on: December 05, 2023, 12:28:42 PM »
My calculation of Oswald's angles based on above is .....
Shot-1 at Z113 is -34.8 deg. If at Holland's Z106 it is still -34.8 deg koz either way it is at the signals.
Shot-2 at Z218 is -21.0 deg.
Shot-3 at Z312 is -16.6 deg (but there was no Oswald shot-3).
So, how is 34.8 deg "straight down"?
34.8 deg is only 13.8 deg more than shot-2's 21.0 deg!

Kellerman heard jfk say my god i am hit at say pseudo Z120.
And Towner footage shows jfk with his right hand high up near his head (ie possibly reacting to getting hit in the galea) at about Z113. Alltho i suppose that jfk sometimes held his right hand hi up when waving.

Re the galea fragment, i thort that the xray showed a number of fragments in galea. But i have not spent time trying to understand the xrays. I simply quote others. Certainly u know more than me re xray stuff.
Are u referring to the 6.5 mm circular fragment? Its strange that this is the same dia as a Carcano slug. I believe that it is possible to get a Carcano bullet that has a brass end on the tail of the slug (in addition to having a brass jacket), in which case if that brass-end tears off (ie due to ricochet) then it could give that kind of fragment.

I did see a target board that showed how a Carcano ricochet off pipe gave 3 angles. Remnant slug took one angle. 2 brass halves of FMJ took another angle. And lead splatter took another angle.
All of which confirms a ricochet off the signal arm or guy-rod.
All of which confirms CE567 & CE569 (2 brass halves)(FMJ is made in 2 halves fused together to receive the lead).
All of which confirms xray splatter in galea.
But i cant find that photo of the target board. I think it is in the NOVA youtube. Would cost me $4 to do a screenprint.

That Hickey fired an autoburst is a certainty. That SS Agents etc in Queen Mary heard it is a certainty. That they lied is a certainty (except that Powers did not lie)(Powers chose his words carefully, he merely said that if Hickey fired then Powers would have heard the shot(s), which is a fact, but the inference that Hickey did not shoot is of course a lie).

Re the sound of an AR15. I wonder whether a 12 gauge shotgun is louder. I have done a bit of duck & rabbit shooting with shotguns.
http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2002-0131-2898.pdf

Anyhow, not only did Hickey shoot a president out of season without a permit (he should have forfeited his AR15) , but he was not wearing earmuffs (he should have been fired from the SS).

Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.

You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).

As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.

I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.

I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.



Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 881
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #102 on: December 05, 2023, 01:41:13 PM »
Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.
DO THE MATH YOURSELF.

You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).
YOUR COMMENTS MAKE NO SENSE.

As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.
U MIGHT BE CORRECT HERE. I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY FRAGMENTS WERE IN XRAY IN THE GALEA.

I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.
SO, WHEN DO U THINK KELLERMAN HEARD I AM HIT?
YES JFK ACTS NORMAL. HE REALIZES THAT HE IS NOT DEAD, EVEN THO HE HAS BEEN BADLY STUNG ON THE RIGHT TOP OF HIS HEAD. AND HE KEEPS SMILING. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT JACKIE & CONNALLY AINT SMILING.
NO, HIS WAVING MOTION IS NOT AFFECTED AS HE DISAPPEARS BEHIND THE SIGN, AND THEN HE CAN BE SEEN AT ABOUT Z224 WHERE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT (AT Z218).

I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.
I NEVER SAID THAT POWERS LIED. I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT "LIED IN THE WC" BIT.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2023, 01:42:38 PM by Marjan Rynkiewicz »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #102 on: December 05, 2023, 01:41:13 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #103 on: December 05, 2023, 01:56:08 PM »
Your downward-angle calculations are way off. Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161 would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171), so a shot fired over 20 frames earlier would have required a steeper downward angle.
DO THE MATH YOURSELF.

You did not address the point that your scenario requires us to believe that the gunman fired when the guy rod was close to his target in his field of view. This is as strained and far-fetched as the speculation that the gunman fired during the split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (even though the human brain requires 1/6th/second to process and react to an image).
YOUR COMMENTS MAKE NO SENSE.

As for the back-of-head fragments, apparently you have not read my initial posts in this thread.
U MIGHT BE CORRECT HERE. I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY FRAGMENTS WERE IN XRAY IN THE GALEA.

I reject as spurious your claim that the Towner film shows JFK reacting to a wound at around Z113 and that Kellerman heard "I'm hit" at pseudo-Z120. JFK is acting entirely normal from the time he comes into view in the Zapruder film until Z188 (when his cheeks appear to puff), and then his waving motion suddenly freezes at around Z200 and he starts to bring his hands toward his throat.
SO, WHEN DO U THINK KELLERMAN HEARD I AM HIT?
YES JFK ACTS NORMAL. HE REALIZES THAT HE IS NOT DEAD, EVEN THO HE HAS BEEN BADLY STUNG ON THE RIGHT TOP OF HIS HEAD. AND HE KEEPS SMILING. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT JACKIE & CONNALLY AINT SMILING.
NO, HIS WAVING MOTION IS NOT AFFECTED AS HE DISAPPEARS BEHIND THE SIGN, AND THEN HE CAN BE SEEN AT ABOUT Z224 WHERE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT (AT Z218).

I reject the idea that Powers and O'Donnell lied to cover up for Hickey. When O'Donnell spilled his guts to Tip O'Neill about hearing shots from the grassy knoll, he certainly would have mentioned that Hickey fired a shot if Hickey had indeed done so. Both Powers and O'Donnell were quite critical of the Secret Service's performance during the shooting. I seriously doubt they would have covered up for Hickey, especially later on when they revealed that they had lied in the WC testimony because the FBI pressured them to do so.
I NEVER SAID THAT POWERS LIED. I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT "LIED IN THE WC" BIT.

Look, your theory utterly collapses on several points. For example, as I've noted, anyone can look at the Zapruder film and see that JFK is acting normal from the time he comes into clear view in Z160 until at least 28 frames later. During this time span, he shows no signs of any reaction to anything abnormal or painful. He looks calm and casual. This fact alone destroys your scenario.

It makes complete sense that no gunman would have fired when a metal pole was near his target in his field of view. It makes no sense to believe otherwise. Have you ever fired at a target with a rifle? If you were aiming at, say, a rabbit and as you panned and tracked the rabbit a large tree branch appeared near the rabbit, are you telling me you would fire? Really? I qualified at all three marksmanship levels in the Army and did some hunting. Even a relative novice would have enough common sense not to fire at his target if an intervening object was near his target in his field of view.