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

[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.

[Tim Nickerson]

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

You haven't proved that they were doctored. There is zero scientific evidence that they have been doctored. None. Nada. Zilch. They have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by numerous experts in photographic analysis and by the photographer who took them.

[Jerry Organ]

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

Scientific? That's rich, coming from someone who I wouldn't be surprised denies climate change and the theory of evolution.

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?

So nothing wrong with the Back-of-the-Head analysis I pointed you to?

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

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?

Again, you fail to answer why Humes didn't provide any skull-entry measurements and why he was 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."

Why does Humes refer to the bone entry wound as "quite similar" to the scalp wound rather than identical if he had measurements for both? Why does Humes refer to elastic recoil of skin if he had a 6mm width of the bone wound?

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."

Try to focus on facts, not semantics.

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.

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."

You actually wrote "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Even taking the measurements you posted:

    "The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar
     and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt
      is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline."

... means a vertical difference of 9mm and lateral difference of about 15mm. I don't see how you can equate that with "millimeter for millimeter". You must be doing this just for the sake of argument. Or you have a serious resistance to schooling.

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.

I "did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned" and that I "claimed they did not"? I said the "jacket and shirt had similar but naturally-random displacements, not exact". A review of our discussion will show that what t I took issue with was your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

Just say you were wrong, Donald. Rather than justifying it in need of only a slightly modification.

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?

Humes measured the large gaping wound before the scalp was reflected. The only measurements after reflection mentioned in the autopsy report are that of a fracture line and "numerous fragments".

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.

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,

The "upward angle" was to do with Clyde Snow's anatomical position only. Canning used a "wounding position" for the President's posture.

that put the back wound well above the throat wound, and that put the throat wound noticeably below the throat!

Like Canning and the HSCA would approve a drawing with the exit point 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.

The fence area is almost on the same plane as the camera plane. If the same background were used, as some critics claimed, there should be zero differences. But changes in camera/subject position, the tilt of the camera and so forth induced the minor differences the HSCA determined.



Depends on how one looks at the Penrose graph. I see a cluster for all the Oswald photos in one corner. You, on the other hand, magnify a corner view. You really think Oswald's head and features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos?

The Backyard Photos differed from the others in clarity, shadow cast, resolution, etc. And so their position on the graph was due to less precise measurement of features.

     Dr. SNOW: The exactness of the approach depends to a large extent on the quality
          of materials that we are given. If the photographs are of poor quality or if there is
          variation in the subject's pose or the apparent age and features of that sort, we
          are apt to be less firm in our conclusions than we are if we are given good quality
          photographs of the individual and uniform poses.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There is a fascinating and revealing follow-up to be told about the November 1966 review of the autopsy materials. As I mentioned earlier, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed the back of the head, i.e., that the back of the head was the area that was closest to the camera when the photo was taken. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture.

Well, someone figured out that admitting that F8 was any kind of a back-of-the-head photo was devastating to the autopsy report. So, less than three months later, there was a second review of the autopsy materials, only this time, according to the report on the review, only Humes and Boswell did the review.

The second review allegedly occurred on January 26, 1967. Guess what happened? Just take a guess. According to the memo that Humes and Boswell signed about the review, Humes and Boswell now decided that F8 showed the right parietal exit wound described in the autopsy report, i.e., that it was taken from a point in front of the head to show the exit wound on the right side of the head!

When the ARRB asked Humes and Boswell about this stunning change, their answers were equally stunning: They both said they were certain that an autopsy photo had been taken of the occipital region after the brain had been removed, and that that occipital-region photo showed the EOP entry site. Moreover, Humes said he did not remember doing the second review of the autopsy materials! He remembered doing the first review, but not the second review, and Boswell, who was sitting right next to Humes during this ARRB interview, did not contradict him. Furthermore, when they were then asked during the ARRB interview to orient F8, they said they could not do so, that the picture was too confusing, and Boswell opined that it was “terrible” photo.

For one thing, these facts raise the question of whether there really was a January 1967 review of the autopsy materials, and of whether Humes and Boswell were just ordered to sign a memo that documented a review that never happened. Of course, it could be that the review did occur that the Humes and Boswell just did not want to admit that they had so drastically contradicted their November 1966 review.

Both Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. David Mantik have viewed the original F8 photo in the National Archives. They have confirmed that it is a photo of the back of the head and that it shows a substantial amount of occipital bone missing. They note that the original F8 in the Archives is an uncropped version of the published version of F8, and that the uncropped original makes it easier to determine the photo’s orientation. Dr. Chesser:

The layer of abdominal wall fat noted above is cropped out of the Fox copies, but was clearly visible on the archive photos. The layer of fat allows orientation to the angle of the camera, and makes it much easier to orient oneself to the view of the skull. The photographer was situated at the head of the table, directing the camera toward the feet, and focusing on the inner skull. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)

Dr. Mantik provides a detailed analysis of the F8 photo in “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” pp. 80-83. Dr. Mantik studied F8 and its “near-twin” photo at the National Archives using a stereo viewer. By stereo viewing and by comparing F8 with the skull x-rays, he was able to establish conclusively that F8 shows that considerable bone is missing from the occipital region:

In this section I present proof that this photograph (B& W # 17, # 18 and color #44, #45 in the current collection) shows the posterior skull. Even Robert McClelland, M.D., insisted, after his visit to the Archives, that the collection included a view of the large hole as seen at Parkland Hospital. It must have been F8. During their initial inventory review (signed on 10 November 1966), the pathologists labeled this as a posterior view: "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp." Furthermore, in his ARRB deposition (reported to me by Douglas Home), Humes located the entry wound (in the posterior skull) toward the bottom of this photograph (as oriented here). This agrees with my interpretation, but disagrees with Baden, who described it more as a view from the left side. . . .

On the other hand, if F8 is the back of the head, then the line segment BA is the mid-saggital line. There is further confirmation that this is the correct. While at the Archives, I viewed this photograph and its near twin (most views are pairs, taken with the camera slightly displaced in successive views) with a stereo viewer, which, for this view, is particularly illuminating. The bone surface (left of midline) was quite rounded, as would be expected for the occiput. In addition, the fractured bone islands at the right front (labeled C and D) could now be appreciated in 3D. After some staring, I realized that there were only two, and that they corresponded to the two bone islands on the frontal X-ray (also labeled C and D). Their sizes, shapes, and locations all fit perfectly. But one additional feature surprised me. In the color photographs at the Archives, there was more to see beyond the top edge of the film than is visible here. I finally realized that I was looking tangentially across the chest and abdomen. I could actually see a nipple (extending out into space in 3D) and the biggest surprise; I could see fat pads folded back from the abdominal incision. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)

[Tim Nickerson]

There is a fascinating and revealing follow-up to be told about the November 1966 review of the autopsy materials. As I mentioned earlier, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed the back of the head, i.e., that the back of the head was the area that was closest to the camera when the photo was taken. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture.

Well, someone figured out that admitting that F8 was any kind of a back-of-the-head photo was devastating to the autopsy report. So, less than three months later, there was a second review of the autopsy materials, only this time, according to the report on the review, only Humes and Boswell did the review.

The second review allegedly occurred on January 26, 1967. Guess what happened? Just take a guess. According to the memo that Humes and Boswell signed about the review, Humes and Boswell now decided that F8 showed the right parietal exit wound described in the autopsy report, i.e., that it was taken from a point in front of the head to show the exit wound on the right side of the head!

When the ARRB asked Humes and Boswell about this stunning change, their answers were equally stunning: They both said they were certain that an autopsy photo had been taken of the occipital region after the brain had been removed, and that that occipital-region photo showed the EOP entry site. Moreover, Humes said he did not remember doing the second review of the autopsy materials! He remembered doing the first review, but not the second review, and Boswell, who was sitting right next to Humes during this ARRB interview, did not contradict him. Furthermore, when they were then asked during the ARRB interview to orient F8, they said they could not do so, that the picture was too confusing, and Boswell opined that it was “terrible” photo.

For one thing, these facts raise the question of whether there really was a January 1967 review of the autopsy materials, and of whether Humes and Boswell were just ordered to sign a memo that documented a review that never happened. Of course, it could be that the review did occur that the Humes and Boswell just did not want to admit that they had so drastically contradicted their November 1966 review.

Both Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. David Mantik have viewed the original F8 photo in the National Archives. They have confirmed that it is a photo of the back of the head and that it shows a substantial amount of occipital bone missing. They note that the original F8 in the Archives is an uncropped version of the published version of F8, and that the uncropped original makes it easier to determine the photo’s orientation. Dr. Chesser:

Dr. Mantik provides a detailed analysis of the F8 photo in “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” pp. 80-83. Dr. Mantik studied F8 and its “near-twin” photo at the National Archives using a stereo viewer. By stereo viewing and by comparing F8 with the skull x-rays, he was able to establish conclusively that F8 shows that considerable bone is missing from the occipital region:

Numerous pathologists have looked at that autopsy photo and there is no consensus on whether it is of the front or the back of the head. So, it's not surprising that Humes and Boswell had trouble with it as well.

[Michael Carney]

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

I was leery of Files also but now that I see proof of a shot from the grassy knoll, whether it was him or someone else it proves it was a conspiracy. I think the shooter on the grassy knoll was there as insurance in case the shooter in the 6th didn’t finish him off.


"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."

Why did he act the way he did when Bonar Menninger approached him. Why didn’t he sit down with him and explain what happened. No, too many people said that they thought he fired the gun. And why the cover up.



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

A lot of people saw the smoke on the grassy knoll but the wind direction was such that it was blowing in line with the motorcade and the shot from the grassy knoll was almost perpendicular to the motorcade so I see no way of that smoke reaching the motorcade.

 
"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".

At the time of the head shot Dave Powers was just about at the limo and had he been there a second or two sooner he would have taken the hit. Ken O’Donnell was looking to the right at the time so he wouldn’t have seen it.


"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.
A shot did come from the front and I believe from the back also. During the autopsy they measured a 6mm dia hole in the back of his head very well could include Hickeys rifle."

“”According to the JFK autopsy report:
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
This was reported as the 'entry wound' of the fatal head-shot bullet.””


So you have two entry wounds and if I recall correctly, there was a “spray” from the back and from the front.  And you said yourself “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.” Implying the shot was from the rear. So two head shots probably at exactly the same time.


"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"
 

If I could figure out how to up load a picture or two they would show that the large wound was in the side of the head, forward of the ear.

 
So I have to conclude that JFK was hit twice in the head one from the grassy knoll and one from behind. There was a gun behind in the hand of Hickey that witnesses thought he had fired and many witnesses that smelled gun smoke. Had someone in Hickey’s position in the motorcade fired a weapon, with the wind direction, the people behind him would have smelled gun smoke, and many did.
There has never been any mention of another gun of a caliber smaller than 6.5mm, Hickey was the only one holding one.
Jean Hill – Saw JFK grab his chest and fall forward and she thinks she saw men in plain clothes shooting back. Agent Winston rides in the front of JFK in the lead car. He noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow up car, “I first thought that he had fired it”. Eight other witnesses saw Hickey with the gun, many of them saw him standing up and them fall back down.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Scientific? That's rich, coming from someone who I wouldn't be surprised denies climate change and the theory of evolution.

I take it this is going to be your fallback dodge every time I ask you why you have not addressed the scientific evidence developed by medical experts/scientists such as Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Ryan, Weatherly, Charnin, Costella, Chambers, etc., etc.?

So nothing wrong with the Back-of-the-Head analysis I pointed you to?

McAdams' "analysis" does not even touch most of the relevant evidence. That is why I asked you to tell me where McAdams addresses the evidence mentioned in the list of questions that I posed to you, all of which you snipped and ducked.

How can anyone credibly discuss the autopsy materials without first explaining the hard scientific evidence that the white patch in the right-rear on the lateral skull x-rays is indisputably manmade? How can anyone dare to defend the lone-gunman fiction about the large head wound without addressing the fact that it has been firmly established that autopsy photo F8 shows considerable bone missing from the occiput?

As I've said before, it's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You don't realize--or don't care--that your claims have been turned into myths by a mountain of new research and new disclosures.[/quote]

Again, you fail to answer why Humes didn't provide any skull-entry measurements and why he was 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."

Why does Humes refer to the bone entry wound as "quite similar" to the scalp wound rather than identical if he had measurements for both? Why does Humes refer to elastic recoil of skin if he had a 6mm width of the bone wound?

And I again point out that this is not what Humes said in the autopsy report. If you admit the meaning of the medical terms he uses, he *did* provide a measurement for the rear entry hole in the skull--he did so by specifying that it was a corresponding wound to the wound in the scalp.

Try to focus on facts, not semantics.

Medical definitions are not "semantics." (Well, maybe to you they are.) There is nothing semantical about the definition of "corresponding" that I quoted from a medical dictionary. It is straightforward. You just can't admit it because you are pathologically determined to cling to the myth that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet hit JFK in the back of the head, never mind that it behaved nothing like an FMJ bullet.

I’m guessing you are not aware that we now know that at the autopsy, even the autopsy doctors noted that the head bullet did not behave like an FMJ missile.

You actually wrote "perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert". Even taking the measurements you posted:

    "The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar
     and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt
      is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline."

... means a vertical difference of 9mm and lateral difference of about 15mm. I don't see how you can equate that with "millimeter for millimeter". You must be doing this just for the sake of argument. Or you have a serious resistance to schooling.

Here we go again with your repeating claims that have already been refuted, and that I have refuted in this forum. As I already documented for you, Frazier said the holes overlap and form a single bullet hole. He said this in plain English. I quoted his testimony to you.

So, now that we've reinvented the wheel because of your refusal to be honest, I will repeat the point that the fact that the holes overlap almost perfectly and form a single hole, the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in nearly perfect correspondence, and would have had to bunch over 2 inches, to produce a single hole that was at least 2 inches below the WC's back-wound location.

I "did not even know that the coat and shirt holes aligned" and that I "claimed they did not"? I said the "jacket and shirt had similar but naturally-random displacements, not exact".

A review of our discussion will show that what t I took issue with was your claim that the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat".

When I said that the coat and shirt holes overlapped and aligned with each other, you said this was “kooky.” Remember that? Then, after I quoted Frazier to you on this point, you back-peddled and claimed that you were only talking about my statement that the clothing bunching would have had to be millimeter-for-millimeter.

Every single researcher who has examined JFK’s coat and shirt at the National Archives has said that the two holes overlap and align almost perfectly, that they are only a fraction of faction of an inch from overlapping and aligning perfectly, just as Frazier explained to the WC.

Just say you were wrong, Donald. Rather than justifying it in need of only a slightly modification.

But you are the one who was way off, not I. I was much closer to the fact of the matter than you were. You initially denied that the two holes even aligned and overlapped. When I quoted Frazier to prove otherwise, you then announced that, oh, you were only talking about how closely the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in correspondence with each other.

You are doing all of this ducking and dodging and evasion to avoid dealing with the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch in almost perfect correspondence with each other, a fantastically far-fetched proposition.

Humes measured the large gaping wound before the scalp was reflected. The only measurements after reflection mentioned in the autopsy report are that of a fracture line and "numerous fragments".

Nope. Sorry. Go read Boswell’s ARRB testimony. He made it clear that they measured the defect and determined the amount of missing bone after they had reflected the scalp (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, pp. 63-65). Boswell pointed out that the 10 mm x 17 mm measurement was done on the scalp but that the 10 mm x 19 mm measurement was done “when the scalp is reflected” (p. 64).

Furthermore, when the ARRB asked Boswell if he still believed that the rear head entry wound was 15 mm x 6 mm and was 2.5 cm to the right and “slightly above” the EOP, he left no doubt that he did. Boswell spent considerable time talking about the EOP entry wound with the ARRB, and never once, not one single time, did he even hint that its size in the skull was any different than its size in the scalp, whereas he did specify this when it came to the large defect.

I notice that you long ago snipped and have continued to ignore Dr. Finck’s report to Gen. Blumberg, where Finck, who was a fanatic about precision of language, likewise said that the scalp wound corresponded to the skull wound:

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, who actually was a forensic pathologist and had some experience with gunshot autopsies, would not have said the skull wound corresponded to the scalp wound if they had differed in size or shape.

And are you ever going to explain what happened to the low/EOP fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw on the lateral skull x-rays at the autopsy? Under the fiercest and most skeptical questioning by the HSCA and the ARRB, they doggedly insisted that the only fragment trail they saw was the one they described in the autopsy report, even though no such trail now appears on the skull x-rays. Gee, where did it go? WC apologists have only two possible answers: (1) the autopsy doctors were so blitheringly incompetent that they “mistook” the EOP fragment trail for a fragment trail that was actually a whopping 4 inches higher in the lateral skull x-rays, or (2) they simply lied about the fragment trail and ignored the fragment trail now visible on the lateral skull x-rays.

I The "upward angle" was to do with Clyde Snow's anatomical position only. Canning used a "wounding position" for the President's posture.

LOL! Do you know what “anatomical position” means? Google it. This only makes your argument more ridiculous.

I notice you ignored the FPP’s observation that the bullet entered at a “slightly upward” angle. I have already showed you the HSCA FPP’s SBT diagram, which leans JFK far forward to make the “slightly upward” trajectory work. But Canning’s SBT trajectory diagram not only ignores this but has JFK sitting straight up and has the back wound above the throat wound and puts the exit point clearly below the throat! We both know you can see these things.

I Like Canning and the HSCA would approve a drawing with the exit point below the throat.

But that is exactly what the diagram shows. We both know you can see this. It is obvious. This is literally a repeat of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. You won’t admit that you see what we both know you can plainly see.

It is also obvious that the back wound is put well above the throat wound and that the trajectory is clearly downward, contrary to the FPP’s diagram.



Worse still, at least for your case, if you take the FPP diagram and tilt Kennedy backward to an upright position, the comical absurdity of the trajectory becomes even more obvious because the bullet would be exiting at an upward angle in relation to the horizontal plane.

The fence area is almost on the same plane as the camera plane. If the same background were used, as some critics claimed, there should be zero differences. But changes in camera/subject position, the tilt of the camera and so forth induced the minor differences the HSCA determined.

You know this is comical nonsense. You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted. The problem, which you have again ducked, is that there is no way in the world that the distance differences would be so tiny if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged. The distances would be far, far greater in every aspect/angle (yaw, pitch, and roll angles).

We are still waiting for some WC apologist to do a reenactment where they use an Imperial Reflex camera, take three photos, and hand the camera back and forth between each exposure, and produce photos that show the same incredibly tiny distances between background objects. I have already quoted the HSCA PEP’s own parallax measurements on those amazingly tiny differences in two other replies.

Depends on how one looks at the Penrose graph. I see a cluster for all the Oswald photos in one corner. You, on the other hand, magnify a corner view. You really think Oswald's head and features are 200% larger in the Backyard Photos?

The Backyard Photos differed from the others in clarity, shadow cast, resolution, etc. And so their position on the graph was due to less precise measurement of features.

     Dr. SNOW: The exactness of the approach depends to a large extent on the quality
          of materials that we are given. If the photographs are of poor quality or if there is
          variation in the subject's pose or the apparent age and features of that sort, we
          are apt to be less firm in our conclusions than we are if we are given good quality
          photographs of the individual and uniform poses.

I already answered this nonsense. Allow me to quote part of what I wrote the last time you posted these arguments:

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that the Backyard cluster is over 200% divergent from the Dallas Arrest cluster in both distance and shape. You keep dancing around this central fact. And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.

Aren't all photo sets roughly-equal in divergence from the Russia photo set. Doesn't the New Orleans photo set almost match the "Mean Distance" of the Backyard Photos?

You must be kidding. The "mean distance"?! Do you know how to read a graph? Do you not see the numbers on each line of the graph? Look at the graph again and you should be able to discern these numbers:

Dallas Arrest: 0 shape distance, 0 size distance
Marine: 0.5 shape distance, 0.020/0.025 size distance
New Orleans: 1.6 shape distance, 0.06/0.07 size distance
Russia: 0.9 shape distance, 0.19 size distance
Backyard: 1.75/1.8 shape distance, 0.31/0.32 size distance

Now, the closest of the Oswald clusters to the Backyard cluster is the New Orleans cluster, but even it diverges by 9% in shape distance and by 250% in size distance from the Backyard cluster.

If the backyard figure's face Penrose measurements were reasonably similar to those of the face seen in the Dallas arrest photos, you would not have these huge variations. And the variations would be even greater if the measurements had included those of the chin, nose, and ear lobes.

Now, to post this cherry-picked nonsense, you either don't grasp the basics about the Penrose analysis or you are hoping that our readers here are so gullible and math challenged that they will ignore the plainly obvious huge divergences seen on the graph and will somehow instead be impressed with your three cherry-picked sets of measurements.

   "There some missing values for the three profile views of Oswald. This is because
    certain measurements necessary for calculating these indices cannot be obtained
    from a profile photograph. Also, a few indices could not be calculated for the
    full-face photographs because lighting, image clarity, or other factors would not
    permit the necessary measurements to be made with sufficient accuracy."

LOL! Right. . . .  Yeah. . . .  And it was just a whopping, cosmic, incredible coincidence that the only three measurements that were omitted from the Penrose analysis were those of the same three areas that critics and photographic experts have identified as problematic: the chin width, the nose length, and the lobe length! I'd be willing to bet good money that even the dumbest Southern "cracker" who looked at the backyard photos would have enough basic intelligence to see that Snow's excuse is laughable.

Do tell me why they could not have gotten these measurements from 133-A-DeM or from 133-A-Stovall or from 133-C. 133-C is an 8 x 10 print. 133-A-Stovall is a 5 x 8 print and has better resolution than 133-A or 133-B. Let's see you stammer out some ridiculous excuse for why the nose, chin, and ear lobes are not clear enough in those photos to get those measurements. You simply must be kidding.

And, again, just imagine how much greater the divergence between the Dallas Arrest cluster and the Backyard cluster would have been if those measurements had been included.