Evasion. I'd be more than happy to discuss the entrance wound in Connally's back, and I suspect you are blissfully unaware of the problems it poses for the SBT, but JBC’s back wound is not the issue at hand.
In other words, you know there is no way you can explain how an object shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. So you are reduced to making the bizarre, ignorant claim that the shape and nature of bullet holes in clothing "means nothing."
Even the WC knew better. The commission asked their expert witnesses about all the clothing holes and about what those holes indicated about the objects that made them (e.g., FBI expert Robert Frazier's testimony about the JFK and JBC clothing holes).
The tears in the front of Connally's shirt form an H because they were not made by CE 399. A teenager with grade-school geometry skills could figure that out. The laws of geometry and physics require that the defect that an object leaves in clothing will be determined by the shape of the object and by its yaw, pitch, and roll angles when it transits the clothing. Those angles cannot make an object shaped like CE 399 magically produce tears that form an H. Not on this planet.
To anyone who is not emotionally committed to seeing the emperor's new clothes, the only logical conclusion is that the tears were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly shaped large fragment or bullet. There is no other plausible explanation. Not on this planet.
I've already addressed this issue, and this issue has been thoroughly examined in many critiques of the SBT. A gunman in the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building could have missed JFK, either narrowly or substantially, and struck Connally instead.
Are you aware that in 1975 a rusted shell casing was found on the roof of the County Records Building? The casing was found under a lip of roofing tar at the base of the roof's parapet on the side facing the plaza. Humm, what a coincidence, hey?
Baden is a quack celebrity pathologist who twisted the evidence to fit the lone-gunman theory. Do you have any idea how many times Baden has been destroyed under cross-examination in courtrooms? Do you know that Baden has been dismissed as medical examiner twice, once by NYC and once by Suffolk County, NY? In speaking of why Baden was fired as NYC's medical examiner, Sarah Weinman writes,
Many more pages could be devoted to discussing Baden's long history of dubious "expert conclusions" and of getting shredded under cross-examination.
When Baden chaired the HSCA FPP, on several occasions he overruled his own expert consultants and/or other members of the panel. It was Baden who insisted that the FPP accept the Clark Panel's now-discredited claim that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick.
What on earth are you talking about? What is your basis for saying they "cannot explain JBC's back wound"? You don't even know what you're talking about. You just keep repeating the same debunked myths over and over, and you refuse to deal with serious, substantive issues, such as how an object shaped like CE 399 could have made tears that formed an H, or the ARRB-released evidence that the autopsy doctors categorically and absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point at that autopsy (which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point), and that there are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt nor in his tie.
Where does Dr. Mantik say that a bullet bounced off Chaney's helmet? I have read everything Dr. Mantik has ever written, and I have never come across that claim. Pat Speer has made that claim, and when Dr. Mantik replied to Speer, he mentioned Speer's claim but did not endorse it (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer).
By the way, Audrey Bell, the Parkland nurse who assisted with the surgery on Gov. Connally, told the ARRB that she was certain that they removed at least 3 bullet fragments from Connally (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=715#relPageId=2&tab=page). Those fragments could not have come from CE 399.
Instead of stating the the tear is wrong explain how the tear should have looked. The tear does not mean a thing.
You don't like Baden but a person promoting a helmet ricochet is some kind of an acknowledged expert?
Dr Mantik seems to be big believer in the idea of a ricochet of any kind or actually any other conspiracy available. It also appears he is a little butt sore over Speer somewhat ignoring him as did Dr Ebersol. I think I understand why. Are all the other experts referenced of the same type as Dr Mantik?
Pat Speer also states the Xray are authentic which appears is Dr. Mantik's pet peeve
Chapter 18: X-ray Specs
Note 4: This is actually Chapter 18a (18b follows), but Speer labels it simply as 18.
Note 5. These twenty questions were prompted by Speer’s comments, although the wording
here is (mostly) my own.
1. Why were the JFK X-rays taken with a portable unit—and does it matter? (p. 1)
.......
5. Was JFK struck by a ricochet fragment? (pp. 3-4)
Yes, most likely he was, perhaps by even more than one. Howard Donahue (whose home I
once visited) lists the evidence for these events (Mortal Error 1992, Bonar Menninger). OTF is
a good candidate for this. Another is a small fragment near the top of the scalp—on the left side
(see Figures 1 and 2). This latter one is visible on both the AP and lateral skull X-rays, even in
poor quality prints, and it does lie way off the main trail of debris. Its appearance on the extant
X-rays (as viewed at NARA) is totally consistent on the two views and also strongly suggests a
metallic fragment. Furthermore, there are even other candidates for ricochet fragments (they
7
are well off the main trail of debris), which I have observed at NARA. Also see my comments
under Figures 1 and 2 about very tiny metal fragments near OTF (on the lateral X-ray) and also
near the 6.5 mm object (on the AP X-ray). (For data on ricochet angles, see “FBI: Bouncing
Bullets.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. S. 2-6 u. 20-23. Washington, Sept/Oct 1969. A more
recent article is by L. C. Haag, “Bullet ricochet: an empirical study and a device for measuring
ricochet angle.” AFTE Journal 7 (3): 44-51, December 1975.)
Whether such bullets must have
struck James Chaney (as Speer insists, albeit without any analysis) would depend critically on
the origin of the shot (Speer only mentions the sniper’s nest) as well as its timing. However,
Speer is correct to cite Vincent DiMaio and to conclude that ricochet bullets do not break into
narrow cross-sections or slices (even though Speer promptly introduces his own slice). He is
also correct to confirm that the nose and tail of the bullet (which supposedly deposited the 6.5
mm object) were both reportedly found in the limousine. Unfortunately, since he has just quoted
DiMaio, Speer sows confusion when he apparently states the opposite:
When one considers that the fragment is, according to both the Clark Panel and the
HSCA Pathology Panel, 6.5 mm in diameter, the same as a cross-section of the
bullet, moreover, the conclusion that the fragment was a “slice” seems obvious.
Even more puzzling, he seems to reverse himself once more on the next page (p. 4): “…it
makes little sense to believe that the middle of a bullet…would get sliced off upon entrance to
the skull…”. I think that what Speer means is that a slice can arise after entering the skull, but
not at the point of entry. But he does insist that the 6.5 mm object represents an authentic piece
of metal, one that came from the “middle of the bullet.” That is, of course, an extraordinary
denouement—unsupported by any forensic data, and surely not approved by DiMaio. Here is
what the HSCA’s ballistics expert (Larry Sturdivan) thinks of this proposal:
In the Biophysics Lab tests, most of the bullets’ jackets ruptured about midway through the skulls.
The projectile would only break into disks if a person were shot by something like a roll of coins.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes
complete enough to contain pieces of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one
with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by
Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated
by the FPP [Forensic Pathology Panel] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough
to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even
brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could
not have been embedded in the president’s skull or scalp.
(The JFK Myths 2005, pp. 192-193)
To make matters even worse, since Speer claims that the JFK X-rays are authentic, he must
also believe that this 6.5 mm object was indeed present on the AP X-ray that night—but that no
one noticed it. Speer totally evades this profound conundrum, as if he were blissfully unaware
of it.
Speer also quotes from DiMaio (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects 1985, p. 90), who reports
no ricochet from a 6.5 mm full metal-jacketed bullet for impact angles of 20º and 30º. The
following data (from the same table), however, are omitted by Speer. For this same bullet, a
ricochet angle of 1.6º results from an impact angle of 10º. In addition, for impact angles of 30º,
various other bullets yield ricochet angles of 1.19º – 2.48º. DiMaio also adds that partial metaljacketed bullets usually break up on impact and then pepper the body with fragments from the
8
jacket or from the core. He notes that these projectiles typically lodge in or just beneath the skin
(that reminds me of JFK’s back wound). The multiple, tiny metallic fragments I saw in the skull
X-rays (and the shallow projectile that caused the back wound, too) might thus be explained
via such ricochet, but Speer carefully avoids following DiMaio down that path. Several pages
later (p. 12), Speer notes that the nose of the bullet (CE-567) was covered with skin:
(
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf),
So the question naturally arises: Was this the projectile that caused JFK’s back wound? The
problem, of course, is that this nose fragment was officially discovered in the front seat of the
limousine so, unless some mix-up later occurred, that explanation won’t work.
-------------------------------------
Baden was the spokesman for a panel of ten renown pathologists with a combined 100,000+ pathology examinations between them. They concluded with the exception of Cyril Wecht that the shots originated from the 6th floor of the TSBD. It is really very simple
The eyewitnesses stated the shots came from the 6th floor
The trajectory analysis places the shots originating from the 6th floor
The rifle was found on the 6th floor
The shells were found on the 6th floor
The bullet and fragments of another bullet were found to match the rifle found on the 6th floor.
A large number of witnesses state there was only two shots.
A number of witnesses state the head shot or the car accelerated after the second shot.
On and on it goes always revolving around the fact there was only two shots, The one thing no one states is there was a shot from the Records building or Dal Tex building
Even Cyril Wecht, the lone dissenting pothogist on the HSCA panel, thought the trajectory was from the TSBD.
