JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Thomas Graves]

So you're just going to ignore all the evidence that I presented and resort to ad hominem attacks?  I am guessing that you made no effort to answer a single point that I made because you don't know how to answer any of them.

I am also guessing that you, like Nickerson, simply refuse to read any of the scholarly scientific studies on the Harper fragment and on the autopsy photos and x-rays that show that the Harper fragment was occipital bone and that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered--and that the autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves (e.g., the intact frontal area on the autopsy photos that show the face vs. the autopsy x-rays that show frontal bone missing--not just damaged, but missing.

Oh, you poor rhetorical thing, you.

--  MWT 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Oh, you poor rhetorical thing, you.

--  MWT 

I'm not the one ducking and dodging. You did not even try to answer a single fact that I presented, and you obviously have no interest in reading both sides of the issue. You will only read sources that you know will support what you already want to believe.

By the way, you asked me about my negative view of McAdams' website. Here is article on the subject that I wrote in 2012:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/vsmcadams.htm

[Tim Nickerson]

Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.

I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Are you ever going to deal with the fact that Dr. Riley based his interpretation of the Harper fragment on the mistaken belief that occipital bone does not contain vascular grooves or foramina?

Who were the other two pathologists. Mantik hasn't established that it was occipital bone. No credible radiologists and pathologists take him seriously.

You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.

I've read the autopsy report and the numerous statements and testimonies of the Bethesda pathologists. I've seen the available autopsy photos and X-Rays. I've viewed the Zapruder film too may times to count. I know without any doubt whatsoever that it was not occipital bone.

LOL!!!  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays?  Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone?  The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. Dr. John Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist hired by the ARRB, told the ARRB that the skull x-rays show significant frontal bone missing. And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing.

By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.

You see, if the skull x-rays show frontal bone missing, then the autopsy photos that show JFK's face cannot be authentic.

Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.

You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?

The "6.5 mm" fragment isn't mentioned in the autopsy report but Humes talked about it in his WC testimony. He referred to it as "a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye". As far as frontal bone being missing, you're going to have to be more specific. What part of the frontal bone was missing and how much?  The only frontal damage to the head was above the right eye , where the bullet exited.

Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?

Witnesses who reported seeing a large wound in the back of the head were mistaken. The autopsy photos, X-Rays, and the Zapruder film do not lie.

The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.

What we see in the Zapruder film is also seen in the autopsy photos. I don't know what you mean by round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible.

Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.

I'm sorry, who is it that you don't believe? Millicent Cranor or William Harper? Or perhaps both?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf

"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54

54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13.
1997

[John Mytton]

Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head. [/size]

The following quotes are from Jackie.

“I tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in,” she said. “But I knew he was dead.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/john-f-kennedy-lay-dying-2670122

"All the ride to the hospital I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me? I love you Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains in."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12287773

Here's Clint specifically pointing out what he saw.



And here are some of the closest civilian eyewitnesses who were all interviewed just an hour or two later and all describe what they saw and not surprisingly they perfectly describe what we see in the Zapruder film.









Btw if you rely on kinetic energy of a bullet making all the movement, how does an exit wound on the back right of JFK's head translate to Kennedy's back and to the left, which is the opposite direction?

JohnM

[Joe Elliott]

I was thinking lately of CTers skillful use of terminology to mislead and the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” is an excellent example of such.

When you hear the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap”, everyone thinks about the backwards motion of the head. Never the forward motion.

This is curious. The fastest motion was forward. Between z312 and z313, the head moved forward with an average speed of 2.2 mph. The fastest backwards motion was a speed of only 1.7 mph between z317 and z318.

Also, the head reached its maximum forward speed during 55 milliseconds. It took 220 milliseconds or more for the head to reach its maximum backwards speed.

Even through the forward motion was faster and much “snapper” than the backward motion, in the mind of most Americans the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” only means the backward motion. A prime example of the power of the repetitive lie which some people are not ashamed to use over and over again.

[Tim Nickerson]

Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays? 

Upon reviewing the autopsy report, I have to say that I was mistaken in agreeing with you that there is no mention of the "6.5 mm" fragment in it.

"Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.”


https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md3/html/Image4.htm

The 7 x 2 mm fragment is the "rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" that Humes refers to in his WC testimony.

[Bill Chapman]

I was thinking lately of CTers skillful use of terminology to mislead and the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” is an excellent example of such.

When you hear the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap”, everyone thinks about the backwards motion of the head. Never the forward motion.

This is curious. The fastest motion was forward. Between z312 and z313, the head moved forward with an average speed of 2.2 mph. The fastest backwards motion was a speed of only 1.7 mph between z317 and z318.

Also, the head reached its maximum forward speed during 55 milliseconds. It took 220 milliseconds or more for the head to reach its maximum backwards speed.

Even through the forward motion was faster and much “snapper” than the backward motion, in the mind of most Americans the phrase “JFK’s Head Snap” only means the backward motion. A prime example of the power of the repetitive lie which some people are not ashamed to use over and over again.

Pure head snap demo, aside from exploding heads etc
Watch the guys in the third boat

Not a valid vimeo URL

[Michael T. Griffith]

Who were the other two pathologists.

Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.

Mantik hasn't established that it was occipital bone.

Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:

Most reconstructions (especially the parietal ones) with HF [Harper fragment] place the metallic smear near an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside.[9] That seems odd, because an entry site should normally lie on the outside. By citing "inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull,"[10] Cairns must have meant either (1) vascular grooves (i.e., grooves in occipital bone; in gross disagreement with Riley), or (2) the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus (which would, by definition, mean occipital bone). Riley did not address Cairns's provocative challenge to his conclusion. Likewise, Riley did not deal with Cairns' comment that HF suggested an entry wound. On the other hand, if HF had been parietal bone, then this smear would have lain near the skull vertex (Figure 3). Since an entry site near the vertex seems unlikely (to nearly everyone),[11] Riley would seem to regard the metallic smear as an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside, and even though there is no smear on the inside. The HSCA took the same curious approach (see below). . . .

The HSCA did address HF and did propose a skull reconstruction. In fact, since Michael Baden, M.D., and J. Lawrence Angel, Ph.D., disagreed with one another, the HSCA offered two contradictory reconstructions.[14] However, neither opinion supported an occipital origin for HF.[15] Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution, after viewing the photographs (the HSCA did not view the HF X-ray), described it as roughly trapezoidal, 7 x 5.5 cm, and coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Angel saw a suture line inside of HF, which he identified as part of the sagittal suture (Figure 3).[16] That he saw a suture line is interesting; in particular, he thereby corroborated Cairns's recollection of a "suture." In his reconstruction, however, Angel left a gap between HF and the triangular fragment[17] (the latter is red in Figure 3); according to Angel, one edge of the triangular fragment comprised part of the coronal suture; and he placed that fragment anterior to that suture. . . .

Another analysis was offered by Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., who is an expert in neuroanatomy. His brief paper[23] concluded that HF was right parietal, thereby agreeing with Angel (and with the HSCA). Riley emphasized two generic features of skull bones: (1) vascular grooves and (2) parietal foramina. The foramina are tiny holes (like dark dimples) in the bone that transmit blood vessels perpendicular to the skull surface. The grooves are shallow linear indentations that carry blood vessels parallel to the surface; Riley claimed that these two features are characteristic of parietal bone, but that "...occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving." Riley also asserted that foramina occurred "...only in parietal bone." (Based on a survey of many anatomy textbooks, and on my authentic human skull, these two arguments are both refuted below.) Riley noted an additional feature that, in his opinion, excluded an occipital site: the absence of deep grooves on HF for two specific, large blood vessels (the transverse sinus and the superior sagittal sinus). However, since the transverse sinus is from the lower occiput, that identification is quite irrelevant. That is because, in my reconstruction, HF is from the upper occiput (as I argue further below).

But the sulcus (or groove) for the superior sagittal sinus may actually be visible on HF (Figures 1 and 30B). Riley did not specifically address that possibility. Finally, Riley emphasized that parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness; all of which he saw in HF. However, he did not address the likelihood that the Dallas pathologists [Cairns, Noteboom, and Harper] were keenly aware of all of these issues. I would also emphasize that they had a major advantage over subsequent observers (including Riley). After all, they could see, in three dimensions, the authentic curvature of the bone itself and did not need to speculate from photographs.

But what images did Riley employ in his analysis? He stated that he had obtained copies of the HF photographs from Mary Ferrell,[24] which permitted him to reach one fundamental conclusion. According to Riley, his photographs (supposedly taken by Cairns) matched those used by the HSCA, thus ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity. More importantly though, via many anatomy citations, we shall refute Riley's two key opinions. (http://www.patspeer.com/rare-files)

No credible radiologists and pathologists take him seriously.

You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.

I've read the autopsy report and the numerous statements and testimonies of the Bethesda pathologists. I've seen the available autopsy photos and X-Rays. I've viewed the Zapruder film too may times to count. I know without any doubt whatsoever that it was not occipital bone.

Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! So you just don't care that the only three pathologists who were able to actually examine the fragment up close and with their own hands, the only three pathologists who did not need to guess about the fragment's contour and curvature--all three of those pathologists, one of whom was a chief pathologist, said it was occipital bone. Nah, never mind all that, because, well, you've read the autopsy report and have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays and the Zapruder film!

The "6.5 mm" fragment isn't mentioned in the autopsy report but Humes talked about it in his WC testimony. He referred to it as "a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye".

LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye."  It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.

And why oh why oh why would Humes have omitted from the autopsy report any mention one of the two largest fragments on the x-rays, a fragment that just happened to be 6.5 mm in size (gosh, what a coincidence!), if he had seen this fragment on the x-rays that he took and examined on the night of the autopsy? Why?

Are you ever going to address the scientific finding that the 6.5 mm fragment image was added to the x-rays, that it is clearly an artifact, as even the HSCA's Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged?

As far as frontal bone being missing, you're going to have to be more specific. What part of the frontal bone was missing and how much?

I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

The only frontal damage to the head was above the right eye, where the bullet exited.

HUH???!!!  Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram).

Witnesses who reported seeing a large wound in the back of the head were mistaken.

Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?

It makes perfect sense that the trained, experienced mortician who prepared JFK's skull and the rest of his body for burial couldn't tell the difference between a large wound that included much of the occiput vs. a large wound several inches away above the right ear that left the occiput undamaged. It's just an amazing coincidence that Clint Hill, who saw this wound in the limo and again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head, the same part of the head that Jackie told the WC she was trying to hold together in the limo--and Hill went to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the locations of the wounds. And, needless to say, it's also an amazing coincidence that the Parkland nurse, Diana Bowron, who prepared Kennedy's body and who packed the large head wound with cotton gauze, said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head. She, too, just couldn't tell the difference between that wound and a wound several inches forward above the right ear. Just amazing.

The autopsy photos, X-Rays, and the Zapruder film do not lie.

So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?

What we see in the Zapruder film is also seen in the autopsy photos. I don't know what you mean by round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible.

Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.

I'm sorry, who is it that you don't believe? Millicent Cranor or William Harper? Or perhaps both?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf

"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54 54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13, 1997.

LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.

I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.