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

[Michael T. Griffith]

If the Commission had used the word "shrunk", you might have a point. But as usual you don't.

They not only used the word "recoil" but also a citation to Humes' testimony. That's where we find out that Humes is actually taking about the skin having elastic recoil, not the bone of the skull. And that's why Bugliosi said it appeared to him to be a "clear case of either of typographical error or loose writing."

Can you admit anything? Ever? If something "recoils" back to a configuration that is smaller than it was before the recoil occurred, that something has "shrunk." When you are talking about a skull hole that decreases in diameter because of an alleged "recoiling," it is perfectly valid to use the verb "shrunk" when referring to the result of that alleged recoil action. But, like I said, I'd be happy to acknowledge that the WC used the verb "recoil."

Now show us where Humes measured the entry wound on the skull itself.

That's nice. But Humes didn't measure the skull wound. He saw it briefly after reflection and from underneath; no rulers involved.

What?! "Saw it briefly"?! You have no clue what you're talking about. The occipital entry wound was the subject of considerable discussion at the autopsy because a small part of it was contained in a piece of missing bone that arrived later during the autopsy. I covered this in a previous reply.

Anyway, if Humes, Boswell, and Finck had not been certain that the skull wound was the same size as the scalp wound, they could not properly have used the term "corresponding wound" in the autopsy report. That verbiage has specific meaning in forensic language. If Wound A is a different size than Wound B, you would not say that Wound A was a "corresponding wound" to Wound B, and vice versa.

If Humes had measured the entry wound on bare bone,

Now why in the world would he not have measured the entry hole in the skull?! Why would he have ignored such a basic forensic procedure? Since he measured the large defect in the skull, why would he not have measured the entry hole on the skull?

And if, for some inexplicable reason, he did not measure the entry hole in the skull, then he had no basis for saying that the wound was a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound.

why did he guess at the size of it based on the size of the scalp wound:

    "the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely
     to get smaller than that of the missile which perforated it, and in this
     case, the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm"

Humes was covering his backside. Read the question to which Humes was responding. He realized that the 6 mm entry wound was a problem because it was allegedly caused by a 6.5 mm bullet.

If Humes had been questioned about this by a competent defense attorney in a trial, he would not have been able to get away with his lame response. The attorney would have asked (1) why the autopsy report neither states nor suggests any doubt about the size of the skull wound, (2) why Finck's report on the autopsy says the occipital entry wound was a "corresponding" wound to the 15 x 6 mm wound in the scalp, and (3) why Humes would have used the phrase "corresponding wound" if there had been any doubt that the two wounds were not both 15 x 6 mm.

Near as I can tell, the two holes "corresponded" in their placement through a brief visual observation. Only the scalp wound was measured. You really think they should have checked the dimensions of a skull entry hole that was directly beneath a scalp entry hole?

Uh, YEAH, that's a basic forensic procedure. You don't just go by the size of the scalp wound, since a scalp wound can differ from the wound beneath it on the skull. Again, why would the doctors have measured the large defect on the skull but not have measured the rear entry hole on the skull? That makes no sense.

Again, in medical-legal/forensic terms, "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding).  If the skull hole had not been 15 x 6 mm, then it would not have "agreed with, matched, or fit" the scalp wound, and Humes could not have referred to it as a "corresponding wound."

Just substitute the word "skull" with "scalp" and it'll then relate to the passage's own Humes citation, his only measurement of the entry wound, skin elasticity, and why Bugliosi thought it was a typo or loose wording.

Really? Too bad Bugliosi didn't explain why the autopsy doctors measured the large defect on the skull and didn't just use the defect's measurement on the scalp. Gee, why would they have done that and not have measured the entry hole in the occipital bone? Why?

I don't see any inference. The paragraph is talking about beveling.

Huh? Did you mean "implication"? I said that readers were left to infer that it was not strange for the entry hole to be smaller than the bullet's diameter. Do you understand the difference between "imply" and "infer." The writer implies, and reader infers.

He's full of crap. It can hardly be "natural elasticity of skin" if a 6.5mm bullet is--in Mclaren's world--supposed to make a scalp wound 7mm wide. Furthermore, elasticity means a 5.56mm bullet ought to leave a 5mm wide hole in the scalp. McLaren must be using Trump Mathematics.

What are you talking about? You might want to go back a re-read McLaren's statement. Did you really not grasp McLaren's straightforward point?

Does McLaren's book have a reference for: "The entry hole width to JFK’s skull wound measured 6mm in width"? Because all I have is Humes' measurement of the scalp wound.

Yeah, the reference is the autopsy report, which says the skull wound was a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound. We also have Finck's report on the autopsy:

The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone. (p. 1)

Finck was fanatical about precision of language. He would not have used the phrase "corresponding to this lesion" to refer to the entry hole in the occiput if the skull hole had not been the same size as the scalp hole.

Humes thought the skull wound probably was a little bigger ("approximately 6 to 7 mm") in width than the scalp wound measurement.

That is not what he said in the autopsy report. He gave no indication whatsoever that there was any difference in size between the scalp wound and the skull wound. Finck gave no such indication either in his report on the autopsy.

It can't be 6mm because that would be the same, not bigger. So now we're easily getting to 6.5 to 7mm for the skull wound.

You mean it "can't be 6 mm" because it destroys your house-of-cards case. You mean it can't be 6 mm because that would prove that the bullet was a 5.56 mm bullet, which was a more common size of ammo and would have been a better choice of ammo. But, nope, you can't have that.

[John Mytton]

Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap.



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Besides the Nix and Zapruder films authenticating the autopsy photos of the position of the wound on JFK we also see Moorman's photo confirming the placement of the teared scalp flap. JohnM

Again, you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s. Here are just a few of the problems that modern research has uncovered with the autopsy photos of the head:

* F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors never even mentioned.

* The skull x-rays show a sizable amount of frontal bone missing, but no such damage is evident in the extant autopsy photos that show the face and the front of the head (F1, F6, F7, and G1).

* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." (p. 3)

However, neither of the back-of-head photos (F3 and F5) shows any such damage. In F3, the only large defect is clearly above and mostly forward of the right ear. No part of the wound even comes close to the occipital region in F3 and F5.

* The autopsy photos F6, F7, and G1, i.e., the right-profile and top-of-head pictures, show impossible colors. In the color versions of these photos, there are three large bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos, the stripes are white or light gray. This is a photographic impossibility with orthochromatic film. With such film, red turns to black, not to white or light gray. Professional photographer Steve Mills has said the following about this problem:

Orthochromatic film, unfiltered, records blue very lightly and red very darkly. This makes perfect sense in [autopsy photos] F1 through F5. Yet, here's a supposedly bloodied scalp in F6 and F7 recorded as light gray. This can be done with a red filter on ortho film, but the blood drops on the towel show me this is not the case. The scalp can't be gray and three bloody spots still be dark if a filter was used. It is common to use ortho film in forensic photography to show differences and details in red and blue areas. But this is no proof. The record declares one type of film, and the photos declare either another or fraud. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, p. 584)

Mills goes on to discuss indications of fraud in the Groden color autopsy photos in relation to the stripes and the scalp:

They [the autopsy photos] also show Groden's color shots to be frauds. Let me explain.

1) Let's say it was pan b/w. F6 and F7 would have to be shot with a blue filter to lighten the stripe. That would darken the supposedly bloody scalp. You can't have it both ways, i.e., light red and light blue, so there's no red filter either. This would not work. So, if it's truly pan film, then the scalp is not bloody skin but brain matter.

2) Let's say it's ortho film. The blue stripe will always be light and the red will always be dark. No filter is required if the scalp is really brain tissue, but a red one is still needed to lighten blood. But here the bloody spots prove this is not the case once again. So do the bloody marks on his shoulder.

So, here's the result: They probably used ortho film and no filtering of any kind. that is brain and not scalp. We can see that no combination of film and filtration can give you b/w photos that will jibe with Groden’s colors. they have to be fake. (Livingstone, High Treason 2, pp. 584-585)

* We now know that numerous autopsy witnesses told the HSCA that the autopsy photos of the head did not show the large head wound that they recalled seeing.

* We now know that when the HSCA FPP showed F3 to Dr. Finck to convince him that he had erred by a staggering 4 inches in his description of the rear head entry wound, Finck would have none of it and even questioned how F3 had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy!

* We now know that nearly every single autopsy witness interviewed by the HSCA said the large head wound was in the back of the head, not on the side or top of the head.

* We now know that several autopsy witnesses drew wound diagrams of the large head wound for the HSCA, and they drew the wound in the back of the head. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who not only watched the autopsy but reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.

* We now know that the autopsy witnesses agreed with the Dallas witnesses that the large wound was in the back of the head, not on the side of the head.

* We now know, thanks to a released WC transcript, that Jackie Kennedy told the WC that on the way to Parkland Hospital, she was trying to hold together the back of her husband's head, and that there was no damage, "nothing," in the front of the head.

* Clint Hill was in the unique position of having seen JFK's large head wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland Hospital and then again at Bethesda Hospital. He was called to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds, and he once again said the large wound was in the back of the head.

* Diana Bowron, the Parkland nurse who packed JFK's large head wound with cotton and who then wrapped his head and body for placement in the coffin, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that she saw no damage to the side or top of the head.

* ALL of the Parkland JFK medical treatment reports, written hours after the shooting and dated 11/22/63, say the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head, and four of them specify that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound. This is crucial because cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue.

WC apologists are conditioned to say "they were all mistaken" in response to this massive eyewitness evidence, but reasonable people don't buy that absurd explanation. A few witnesses in any crime will often be mistaken, but we are talking about three groups of witnesses in three different locations who all said the same thing about the large head wound, and most of those witnesses were either federal agents or medical personnel. So the lame line that "they were all mistaken" just will not cut it for any rational, objective person.

And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6 and F7 show impossible colors.

[John Mytton]

I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.

Hi Jerry, I came across a high definition Moorman photo and saw what appeared to be a definite pattern at the back of JFK's head and as usual without any preconceived notion I just wanted to see if there was any correlation between Moorman and the autopsy photos and to nobodies surprise the images appeared to match, which along with all the other corroborating physical evidence is just another nail in the coffin of this bizarre overly complicated conspiracy.

At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.

Griffith seems to think that a wall of text which is often not academically peer reviewed is all he needs, but it takes a lot more than that.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

 

All of “Mytton’s” cartoons are based on preconceived notions.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I notice you don't address one-at-a-time specific items the "LNers" present. In this case, to address John M's presentation, you tried some aspersions and heaped up mounds of diversion through cut and paste.

Right, so massive evidence that autopsy photos F3, F5, F6, and F7 have been doctored is what you call "diversion." In your brain, massive evidence that the large head wound was in the back of the head is "diversion." Your only other answer to all this evidence is that "they were all mistaken."

And, uh, just FYI, I copied and pasted only a few lines of that long list of evidence. I typed most of it.

At the end you said:

    "And this is not to mention the fact that F8 shows an exit wound
     that the autopsy report does not describe and that the autopsy
     doctors did not mention, and the fact that autopsy photos F6
     and F7 show impossible colors."

Well, you did mention it prior in your post. You're pasting so much you're losing track of what you're posting.

You should take a few writing courses; learn a little English. While you're at it, get someone to explain to you the difference between "imply" and "infer," because you don't seem to know the difference.

Now, the paragraph you quote and the paragraph before it were summary/closing paragraphs. Yes, I was aware that I had mentioned the items in the second summary paragraph earlier in my long reply, but I had not yet mentioned them in my closing. I guess you could not distinguish between the body of my reply and the closing/summary.

I notice you still have not tried to defend your comical statement that Humes did not need to measure the entry wound in the skull and only glanced at it. How long have you been studying this case? A few weeks? This is the kind of nonsense that one would expect from a newcomer who had only read a handful of books on the case.

One reason that autopsy doctors have to carefully study bullet holes in skulls is to examine them for beveling, chipping, etc. One reason that pathologists have to measure bullet holes in skulls is that the scalp hole and the skull hole will not always correspond.

We both know why you are straining and reaching so badly here: You simply cannot afford to admit that Humes measured the skull hole. Nor can you admit that his use of the term "corresponding wound" was common forensic verbiage to say that the skull hole was the same size as the scalp hole. You can't afford to admit these things because this would mean that the rear head entry wound was not made by a 6.5 mm missile.

And I would bet good money that six months from now, if someone were to post another thread on this issue, you would repeat the same nonsensical claims and just hope that nobody viewing the thread knew better.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I had not seen or heard of the “spray” of the tiny fragments before and the direction. Then if that is true then James Files did it after all. I have not seen what a mercury tipped bullet would do to someone’s head but I would like to sew this part of it up.

I do not believe James Files' story. I think his story is full of holes.

I think in the case of Hickey and the secret service, I think they though they did it. Hickeys gun went off at the same time of the head shot, thus the cover up. I don’t know when the particle paths were discovered but I think Hickey might have gone to his grave thinking he killed JFK, poor bastard.

I just do not see any indication that Hickey thought he had shot Kennedy. Hickey's post-assassination behavior is consistent with that of a man who was upset at being falsely accused of having accidentally shot JFK.

As far as you not seeing any credible evidence that Hickey fired the gun: 1. the gun smoke in the motorcade, could not have come from the grassy knoll, wind direction was wrong.

The gun smoke was seen near the fence on the grassy knoll, and there was a railyard with rail cars that would have blocked much of the wind.

2. Several witnesses saw him with the gun and one thought he fired it.

Nobody in the car, including the two Kennedy loyalists--Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell--heard or saw Hickey fire his rifle. Power and O'Donnell later said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Federal agents pressured them into changing their original statements, but later they revealed that they still believed the shots came from the grassy knoll.

The HSCA acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt recording found that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll.

It makes sense he stood up on the back seat, the car accelerated or decelerated and he lost his balance and grabbing for something to hold onto, he squeezed off a round, where it went, who knows.

But the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays indicates that the shot came from the front. Even if one wants to assume the fragment trail goes from back to front, there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the x-rays, which rules out Hickey's rifle. Even Donahue acknowledged that the EOP entry site--the one described in the autopsy report--was too low to line up with the sixth-floor window or with Hickey's rifle.

This scenario works with everything I said happened with a shot from Hickey. Only part of my previous scenario is Hickeys shot did not hit JFK but it explains everything else; smelling gun smoke in the motorcade, seeing Hickey with the gun, etc.

Other problems with the Hickey scenario are (1) that dozens of witnesses reported that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, not the right-parietal area, (2) that the lateral skull x-rays contain a manmade white patch over the right-rear part of the head that was placed there to conceal the right-rear exit wound, and (3) that autopsy photo F8 shows a bullet hole that was not described in the autopsy report and that indicates a shot from the front.

The HSCA said that F8 shows the top and front of the head, i.e., that the camera was aiming at the front part of the right parietal area. But when Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Ebersole, and James Stringer inventoried the autopsy materials in November 1966, they said that F8 was a picture of the back of the head. Their description is especially compelling because Stringer was the one who took the photo. Dr. Mantik, after studying the original photo with a stereo viewer at the National Archives and comparing the photo to the skull x-rays, has confirmed that F8 shows the back of the head.

This is crucial because when you understand that F8 shows the back of the head in the foreview, you understand that it is showing a large wound in the occipital bone, which proves that autopsy photos F3 and F5 have been altered. Dr. Mantik devotes several pages to the correct orientation of F8 in "The Medical Evidence Decoded." I quote from his conclusion:

The orientation described here is consistent with the historical orientation, with the X-rays, with Humes's comment about the notch, with Boswell's two drawings (one at the autopsy and one for the ARRB), and even with Angel's drawings, but not with Baden's orientation. From this photograph, we can be certain that the back of the head was blown out, quite dramatically in fact, just like all of the witnesses said. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that a frontal headshot led to this injury. This deduction, of course, also corroborates the recollections of all of those new and old witnesses who saw autopsy photographs with such a massive defect, which, in turn, means that other photographs really have disappeared. ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," p. 83)

[Michael T. Griffith]

Well, since I don't think they were doctored and you CTs haven't proven otherwise, it is diversion.

We have proved they were doctored. You just won't acknowledge the scientific evidence that they have been doctored.

Critics' opinions can be mistaken. Photos and the Zapruder film (all authentic) are more reliable. An example, since you brought it up, is the "back-of-the-head" witnesses:

The McAdams site has been tracking this for years, comparing critics' claims with actual evidence.

Dealey Plaza		Link
Photographic Evidence		Link
Parkland and Bethesda		Link

If you have to fall back on McAdams' amateurish and misleading research, you know you're in trouble. Tell me:

Where does McAdams address the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB?

Where does he address the 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital treatment reports?

Where does he explain how the mortician, the guy who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the right parietal and temporal region for an orange-sized wound in the occiput?

Where does he explain the manmade white patch over the right-rear part of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, which is 1100 times brighter than any other part of the skull in the autopsy x-rays and in JFK's authentic 1960 skull x-rays?

Where does he explain that in authentic x-rays, the brightest part of the skull is never more than two or three times brighter than the darkest part of the skull?

Where does he explain the OD measurements that have been done on the autopsy skull x-rays by three different medical doctors and that all prove that those x-rays give measurements that are physically impossible for an authentic, unaltered original x-ray?

Where does he explain Dr. Ebersole's report that an occipital bone fragment arrived late in the autopsy?

Where does he explain the vanishing lower fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw?

Like making your font size bigger than everyone else? Mr. Decorum.

Again, if it bothers you so much, don't read my replies.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a measurement of the bared-bone skull. Maybe the autopsy report, WC or HSCA. Your idea that "corresponding" automatically means he would have measured the bone wound as well doesn't cut it. Not when Humes is telling the Commission:

    "When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through
     defect corresponding with the wound in the scalp. This wound
     had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the
     following reason: The defect in the outer table was oval in outline,
     quite similar to the defect in the skin."

Nothing about a ruler being used to measure the skull wound. It was "quite similar", meaning in appearance and location on the head.

They actually teach that "corresponding" means confirmed to the micro-millimeter in forensic pathology courses? Gee, who knew.

I have already quoted a medical dictionary for you that says that in medical usage "corresponding" has a specific meaning of "agreeing with, matching, or fitting" (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corresponding). Did you forget that? Or were just hoping that people who read your reply would not have read my previous replies?

Two wounds can't "fit" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "match" each other if they are not the same size, right? Two wounds can't "agree with" each other if they are not the same size, right?

You see, the problem is that you just cannot admit that Humes used "corresponding" in its typical medical  meaning of "matching" or "fitting." You claim that Humes simply meant "similar." But if he had meant "similar," he would have said "similar" instead of "corresponding."

I mean, heck, I'm not a doctor, but I would never misuse "corresponding" to mean "similar" even if I were describing, let's say, a hole that started in my siding and continued through my dry wall. If the hole in the siding were, say, 8 x 12 mm, and the hole in the dry wall were 10 x 14 mm, I would not say the hole in the dry wall "corresponded" to the hole in the siding. I would say the dry-wall hole was similar in size to the siding hole, but I would never say the two holes were "corresponding" holes. That's just common sense and good English.

This is all too mindful of your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

Oh, wow. Really? This again? In point of fact, the bunching would have to be virtually millimeter for millimeter. As we both know, and by your own admission, I only slightly modified my argument to say that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in "nearly identical correspondence" instead of "millimeter for millimeter." There is very little difference between "millimeter for millimeter" and "nearly identical correspondence."

I might add that you did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned. At first you claimed they did not. Then, you went silent on the point after I proved that they did.

And you want to falsely have people believe the scalp measurements were identical to skull measurements never made.

You don't know this. You are just assuming this because otherwise your case collapses. Humes's wording, if you're willing to be honest, clearly indicates that he did measure the entry wound in the skull, or else he would not have described the wound as a "corresponding wound" to the scalp wound. 

Furthermore, I have asked you several times now to explain why Humes would have measured the large defect in the skull but not the entry wound. Why do you keep ducking this question? Why on earth would Humes have measured the exit wound in the skull but not the entry wound? Why?

That way you can disingenuously claim that a 6.5mm bullet couldn't have caused the skull inshoot.

You're the one being disingenuous. You want to twist "corresponding" to merely mean "similar," even though I've quoted for you a medical dictionary that says "corresponding" means "agreeing with, matching, or fitting." If two wounds are different sizes, they cannot be said to "agree with, fit, or match" each other. But you can't even gather up enough honesty to admit such an obvious, common-sense point.

Well, a few folks around here are certainly on to you.

I am not the one who has been caught posting ludicrous diagrams that destroy my own arguments, such as when you posted the "final" HSCA SBT diagram that showed the alleged magic bullet hitting the body at a downward angle, that put the back wound well above the throat wound, and that put the throat wound noticeably below the throat! 

I am not the one who did not even know that JFK's rear coat and shirt holes align. You are.

I am not the one who denied that the HSCA PEP found only incredibly tiny differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos, even though those miniscule differences are documented for all to see in the HSCA PEP's report, and even though I have posted the measurements twice. You are.

I am not the one who looked right at the HSCA PEP's Penrose measurements and then claimed that the Backyard measurements do not show marked divergences from the Dallas Arrest, Marine, New Orleans, and Russia measurements, even though some of the variances over 200%. You are.

And on and on and on I could go.