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

[Tim Nickerson]

Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment.

 

That has to be the stupidest thing that I've seen in weeks. And I see a lot of stupid comments from CTs on various discussion groups. Do you ever even stop to think about what it is that you are talking about?

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 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.[/size]

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 04:24:34 AM
The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?

[Joe Elliott]

When talking about where the Harper fragment ended up, don’t forget Zapruder frames 313 and 314.





The Harper fragment is seen flying up and forward. It looks like a streak of dots. As the fragments rotated, it would sometime be seen edge on, hence a series of dots. How do we know that this object is the Harper fragment? Well, if it isn’t, there were two fragments. A visible fragment and an invisible fragment. And the visible fragment was never found while the invisible fragment was found and became known as the Harper fragment. This is very unlikely. Why would the Harper fragment be invisible in frames 313 and 314? It is big enough to be seen.

It's funny that CTers believe the invisible piece of bone that Jackie allegedly went out on the trunk to retrieve was real, while questioning the visible flying fragment in frames 313 and 314. I think the ‘Jackie fragment’ and the ‘Harper fragment’ so how little CTers are influenced by evidence, and how strongly influenced by belief. They believe the fragment that can’t be seen but don’t believe in the fragment that can be seen and has been recovered.

[John Iacoletti]

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

[John Mytton]

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336081190946058915/

Hill later told the Warren Commission that he thought Mrs. Kennedy was reaching for a piece of the president's skull that had been blown off. He crawled to her and guided her back into her seat. Once back in the car, Hill placed his body above the president and Mrs. Kennedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Hill_(Secret_Service)#:~:text=Kennedy%20was%20reaching%20for%20a,Kennedy.

Jackie Kennedy leaped onto the back of the presidential limousine in a desperate bid to save her husband by attempting to retrieve a piece of his skull.
https://www.newser.com/story/143414/chilling-memoir-jackie-tried-to-save-piece-of-jfks-skull.html

"[The Nix Film] shows very clearly that [Jackie Kennedy] is reaching for a piece of skull on the back portion of the automobile."
Rob Caprio
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-92.html

onto the limousine trunk to retrieve a portion of her husband's skull.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/opinion/l-testimony-and-film-leave-mrs-kennedy-s-actions-a-mystery-509388.html


https://www.quora.com/What-was-Jackie-Kennedy-reaching-for-when-President-Kennedy-was-shot

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)

John Costello says that the whole Zapruder film is fake but as I will show, he keeps writing checks that he can't afford and he only brings shame to your list and I bet many others on your list who take on subjects they don't understand will just as easily be exposed.

1. Costello claims that the crowd on Zapruder's side of the road show no reaction and @16:00 makes a joke comment that they should be told to the President's driven past so they can show a reaction? Does Costello expect the mature adult crowd to start doing jumping jacks or something equally ludicrous?

Not only do some people move as the Limo goes past, two of the women number 2 and number 6 can be seen raising their hands to clap and the others you can't see their hands.



Here's the starting pre Z133 frames and you can see people straining and peering around each other to see what's coming.



2. Costello claims that the posts of the Stemmons freeway sign flip/flop as compared to the background but he doesn't take into account the slight separation of the panning and the simple distortion of either side of a camera lens.
But if he tested any other footage he would see that it's not only possible but repeatable on the camera in my GIF.
It may take a few cycles of viewing the following GIF to fully comprehend, but this GIF shows the same effect as Costello claims in Zapruder is fakery!

Costello's claim


JohnM's rebuttal showing the slight panning and the lamp post at either end of a camera lens


This web site goes into more detail about why Costello is wrong.

"John Costello can't tell us why the sign and the lamppost are the way they are in the Zapruder film. He shows us the results of his sophisticated digital processing, he shows us his extensive panoramas, but he can't tell us how the apparently different signs in the Barnes photo and Zapruder frames came to be. Following Jim Fetzer's lead, he offers us only doubt, mistrust, and some vague hints of a massive conspiracy lurking in the shadows."
https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/costella.html

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."

Corroboration for Dr. Ebersole's HSCA statement comes from none other than Dr. Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors. In files released by the ARRB, we learn that Dr. Boswell made it clear to the HSCA that part of the rear entry wound, which he and the other pathologists said was located in the occiput, was contained in a piece of missing bone that didn't arrive until late that night. Thus, according to Dr. Boswell's detailed description to HSCA investigators, that late-arriving bone fragment would have had to be mostly or entirely from the occipital area. The Harper fragment contains part a bullet hole as well.

Not only does this strengthen the case that there was a large defect in part of the occiput, but it discredits autopsy photos F3 and F5, i.e., the photos that show the back of the head intact. Recall that even the autopsy report said that the large head wound extended into the occiput (p. 3); however, in F3 and F5, the large wound does not even come close to the occiput.

This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.

Joe O'Donnell, who worked with White House photographer Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole in the back of the head. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.

This information has been known and discussed in numerous books and articles since the late 1990s, but most WC apologists seem to be unaware of it, or else they are ignoring it because they cannot explain it.

[John Mytton]

See the Harper fragment with your own eyes being blasted out and forward and NO where else in the Zapruder film do we see the ridiculous theory of a sizeable fragment and matter being blasted out the back.



The following recreation shows a similar effect.



Where the Harper fragment came from.



Ain't no exit hole back here and the impossible to fake stereoscopic autopsy photo proves it.



(1) Vascular grooves

The inner surface of the skull is marked in places by vascular grooves, i.e., small depressions where blood vessels are located in vivo. In the case of parietal bone, vascular grooves are mainly from branches of the middle meningeal. No such pattern exists for occipital bone; it has an entirely different type of interior surface which will be described below. The photograph of the interior surface of the Harper fragment (HSCA Fig. 27; see Figure 1A and compare to Figure 1C) shows a pattern of vascular grooving entirely consistent with it being parietal bone and entirely inconsistent with it being occipital bone.

In contrast to parietal bone, occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving. It does have internal markings, including deep sulci ("grooves") that are much larger than vascular grooves; these are grooves for the transverse sinus and superior sagittal sinus. No such deep grooves are visible in the photographs of the Harper fragment.

(2) Additional features

Parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth (excluding vascular grooves) inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness. In contrast, occipital bone is characterized by major variations on its internal surface (i.e., many different bumps and grooves from various things), much greater curvature, and substantial variation in thickness (compare drawings of internal aspects of parietal and occipital bone in Figure 2). Simply put, occipital bone doesn't look like the fragment in Figure 1 but parietal bone does. There are numerous other reasons why the Harper fragment is parietal bone. For example, parietal foramina (vascular perforations of a type that occur only in parietal bone) visible in the photograph establish the location and orientation of the fragment. It is worth mentioning that if the Harper fragment were lower occipital bone, death would have been virtually instantaneous. The lower portion of occipital bone forms the foramen magnum (the space through which the forebrain connects to the spinal cord); for numerous reasons, it is virtually inconceivable that John Kennedy would have shown any vital signs following explosive destruction of this area.

The information reported here establishes that the Harper fragment is parietal, not occipital bone. This fact should not be over-interpreted. The conclusion supports the authenticity of the medical evidence, but does not prove it. More importantly, the origin of the Harper fragment as parietal bone does not in any way support the conclusion that John Kennedy was struck in the head by one and only one bullet. The conclusion simply clarifies the remaining issues in evaluating the medical evidence.

The controversy over the autopsy of John Kennedy has generated many unresolved questions about the medical evidence. However, the available evidence is sufficient to determine the origin of the Harper fragment based on the anatomical features of the fragment. These anatomical features no doubt seem obscure to the general reader but they are definitive to a neuroanatomist. All of the features of the Harper fragment are consistent with it being parietal bone and inconsistent with it being occipital bone; there can be no reasonable scientific doubt that the Harper fragment is parietal bone.


https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out. The 6.5 mm object was never on JFK's skull and was not placed on the AP x-ray until after the autopsy. This explains why the autopsy doctors did not mention the object in the autopsy report, why they did not mention the object in their WC testimony, and why they each told the ARRB that they did not see the object on the night of the autopsy.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, studied the autopsy x-rays and discovered that the 6.5 mm "fragment" on the AP x-ray is not really a fragment but rather an image that has been ghosted over a very small, genuine metal fragment, which can be seen on the lateral and AP skull x-rays. Dr. Mantik discovered this by studying the object under high magnification and then by doing optical density measurements of the object. He was even able to duplicate a process that could have been used in the 1960s to place the object on the AP x-ray.

Since, according to the WC and the HSCA, the nose and tail of the rear-entry FMJ bullet were found in the limousine, the 6.5 mm “fragment” would have to be the cross-section from the interior of the FMJ bullet, which is an impossibility with this kind of ammo under these circumstances, as even HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged. Dr. Mantik discusses the importance of Sturdivan’s admission:

During the lifetime of the HSCA, Larry Sturdivan served as its ballistics consultant. In his subsequent book he emphasized that he had never, in his entire career, seen a cross-section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull. So, totally contrary to all prior government investigations, he concluded that the 6.5 mm object could not be a metal fragment:

“I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not, is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (E-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998)

This was a radical statement. After all, the HSCA in particular, had relied on the (metallic) authenticity of this fragment in the most fundamental manner: based on the supposed reality of this 6.5 mm object, the HSCA had concluded that the bullet (from the sole headshot) had deposited this 6.5 mm “metal fragment” near its entry site at the back of the skull. (“The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest ‘Metallic Fragment,’” p. 5, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)

When was the 6.5 mm object placed on the AP x-ray? There is evidence that suggests it was put there shortly before the Clark Panel viewed the autopsy x-rays and photos in 1968.

The autopsy doctors reexamined the autopsy x-rays in January 1967, and after doing so they signed a statement that said the materials they had just examined "corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the summary of our autopsy report." They could not have truthfully said this if the AP skull x-ray that they viewed had contained the 6.5 mm fragment.

The key word here being “truthfully.” The 6.5 mm object might have been on the AP x-ray by the time the autopsy doctors reexamined the autopsy x-rays in 1967, and the doctors might have decided to ignore it because they realized the huge problems it created for the credibility of the autopsy report, for their own credibility as pathologists, and for the location of the rear head entry wound.

Additionally, Dr. Finck might have been aware, and might have informed Humes and Boswell, that the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used could not have deposited a 6.5 mm fragment at the entry point on the outer table of skull, especially not below the entry point, since the bullet entered the skull at a downward angle and thus would have deposited the fragment above the hole, not below it.

Many researchers believe the 6.5 mm object was placed on the AP x-ray soon after the autopsy, and there is some evidence that suggests this. If such is the case, it means the autopsy doctors ignored the object when they reexamined the autopsy x-rays in early 1967.