LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Andrew Mason]

Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.

Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:

[Michael T. Griffith]

Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:

HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really??? Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.

Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.

Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???

Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle and traveling from right to left could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.

ADDENDUM: And just FYI, the HSCA's trajectory expert, a NASA scientist named Thomas Canning, said JFK's head was tilted/leaning forward by 11 degrees when the Z313 shot occurred. The HSCA FPP experts produced a drawing that showed JFK's head leaning forward by about 27 degrees when the Z313 shot occurred, and they were assuming the entry point to be in the cowlick. But you say you see a 60-degree forward tilt in the Muchmore frame, and that an Oswald bullet hitting the EOP entry site could have produced the same exit wound described by the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP. Amazing.

[Andrew Mason]

HUH??? You see JFK's head titled 60 degrees forward in that image??? Really???

The forward head lean is more than 30 degrees relative to the car horizontal*(see below).  But Donohue is wrong that the path requires a 60 degree downward angle.  Draw an 11 degree angle to the car horizontal at that point, which was the angle from the SN, entering the back of the head and see where it exits. It exits the top front of the head.   You don't need to measure angles. Just draw the line:



Since the head is also turned to the left by about 30 degrees more than a line from the SN to the head, it exits the right side at the top of the head.  That could not possibly be done by a shot from where Hickey was with JFK turned and leaning like that.

*  The horizontal angle from the SN to JFK's head was arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees (65.3 feet above JFK and 265.3 feet direct distance as surveyed and shown in CE884).  Subtracting 3 degrees for the slope of the road, this means the angle to the car horizontal was about 11.25 degrees.  The path through JFK's head was from the entry wound located 3" below the top of the head to the exit wound which was 6" farther forward and at the top of the right side of the head, that is an upward angle of arctan(3/6)=26.5 degrees.  In other words:  the forward tilt of JFK's head relative to the car horizontal has to equal the 11.25 degrees downward slope from the SN relative to the car horizontal plus the angle of the bullet path to the head horizontal (26.5 degrees)=38 degrees. So the forward lean of JFK just has to be about 38 degrees, not 60.

Have you compared that Muchmore frame with the WC's diagram of JFK's position and of the bullet's alleged path? Clearly not.

See above.

Are you new to the JFK case? Do you know why the CP and the HSCA moved up the rear head entry wound by nearly 4 inches? Yet here you are arguing that an Oswald bullet could have hit just above the EOP and created a wound above and to the right of that entry point.

See above.

Did you also miss the fact that in that Muchmore frame he is leaning noticeably to the left, and that his right shoulder is visibly higher than his left shoulder???

Now, with these observed facts in mind, do tell us how a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest and therefore entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle could have hit slightly above the EOP and then magically veered upward and rightward to create a gaping wound above the right ear and to leave a fragment trail that extended to a point above the right orbit. Yes, please explain.

See above.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

The average adult scalp is between 5.5 mm and 5.8 mm deep/thick. I said 5.5 mm to be conservative and to give every benefit of doubt.

It is just not reasonable to argue that a fragment that tore through four of the five layers of the scalp and penetrated into the periosteum would not have caused a sharp stabbing pain. It is even more unreasonable to claim that a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp and embedded itself in the outer table would not have caused an even sharper stabbing pain.

Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.

Surely you know that this is a very far-fetched suggestion. There is no record of JFK being anywhere near gunfire in a paved area before the day of the assassination. JFK did not enjoy guns and hunting. His only known hunting activity was reportedly when LBJ took him hunting on his ranch about two weeks after the 1960 election, and nothing unusual was reported as occurring during the outing--and, needless to say, there was no pavement in the woods where they were hunting.

You keep saying "if true" about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Why? Do you think that Dr. Mantik fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Do you think that Dr. Chesser fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Dr. Mantik discovered the fragment only after viewing the 6.5 mm object under high magnification, and he then did OD measurements on it to confirm his visual detection.

Do you think that Dr. Fitzpatrick was somehow mistaken when he said, after spending many hours examining the skull x-rays over a two-day period, that there is a small fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays that is within the 6.5 mm object's area when viewed from the AP angle? Do you think that all the HSCA FPP experts were mistaken when they said they saw a small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays that vertically aligned with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Do you understand that even Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that there's a small bullet fragment in that location on the lateral x-rays but that it cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object?

There's no "if true" about it.

Researchers have long puzzled over Sibert and O'Neill's reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4). They said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is close to the lamda, and the lamda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and sagittal suture at the top of the occiput; it can certainly be described as the juncture of the skull bone in the back of the head.

However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm, and that fragment was nowhere near the back of the head but was very close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays.

Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment was based on the autopsy doctors talking about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lamda.

So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.

The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays.

Thats a good summary.
Hume had access to the xrays up until about midnight. These xrays did not of course have the fake 6.5 circular "fragment".
Yes Hume & Co probly suppressed the alien 6.3 x 2.5 external back of head fragment that could only have come from a ricochet.
And then some years later we have the external 1mm fragment (left of the fake fragment) that could only have come from a ricochet.
And then many years later we have the lots of very small external fragments (i think right of the fake) that could only have come from a ricochet.

But Donahue's ricochet offa the tarmac behind the jfklimo (ie with fragments hitting jfk, & fragments landing in the limo) is silly.
Donahue did not realize that Haag & Co had shown that a ricochet (at more than a critical angle) off tarmac produces a near vertical plume, & that a bystander near the crater would almost certainly never suffer an injury.
And Donahue thort that the ricochet was near Z190 (not the actual Z105)(ie at the signals).

I wonder whether it would have been possible in 1963 to take stereo pairs of xrays of the skull etc (to give a 3D image)?
What could a modern scan tell us (ie exhumation)? Re the whole saga.

III. Application of Stereo-Imaging to the Medical Field: Historical Perspective
The stereograph was first introduced between the 1830s and 1840s and was based on the photography techniques suggested by Niepce, Daguerre, and Talbot. In 1850, Brewster invented a refracting stereoscope device called the lenticular stereoscope, which consisted of a closed box with one or two openings for the introduction of light into the box and two lenticular lenses, and enabled a viewer to see a 3D image on the floor of the closed box [12] (Figure 3). Soon after Röentgen first discovered the X-ray in 1895, Thomson [13] suggested acquiring and viewing stereoscopic X-ray images, and in 1898, Davidson [14,15] insisted on the advantages of stereoscopic photography and skiagraphy for recording various clinical and pathological appearances. In the early part of the 20th century, several early-stage stereoscopic devices provided stereo pairs of X-ray images to radiologists; however, it was difficult to align the films precisely. Therefore, the radiologists often experienced discomfort and eye strain when using the devices. Nevertheless, the demand for stereoscopic X-ray devices that can provide more realistic images of tissue morphology and anatomy gradually increased. Since the 1970s, several 3D imaging devices, such as X-ray computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), that can obtain several sliced images of specific body areas with uniform spacing and display the 3D structure of the body by using volume/surface rendering techniques have been developed and applied to various clinical diagnostic fields. Moreover, the application of 3D stereoscopic imaging has recently broadened to various other fields, such as teaching anatomy, digital mammography, diabetic retinopathy, and minimally invasive surgery [16].

[Michael T. Griffith]

Someone is arrogant with few scruples. This is like you claiming all LNers believe the SBT occurred at Z224. Most LNers now go with the "cowlick"-level inshoot. Try to get up to speed on these things.

A near-EOP shot would have shattered the lower right skull and half the floor, with little metal, if any, exiting That's inconsistent with the autopsy photos and descriptions, and the gaping head wound location seen in the Zapruder film.. Humes saw the problem in the 1967 "Military Review" and the "Clark Panel" saw it immediately. If Humes had bared the EOP (there's a lot of attachments there to clear away), I believe he would have taken a picture of the skull entry wound in relation to the bared EOP. Instead Humes relied on feeling through the scalp for the EOP and reflecting the scalp without baring the EOP

Humes seems to have measured from the skull mid-line to the skull entry wound ("2.5 cm. laterally"). Problem is there's no mid-line visible on the exterior of the occipital bone, but there is a mid-line right over from the "cowlick"-level entry wound (Clark Panel, HSCA).

LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.

A few points in reply:

-- You might want to read your own and best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, regarding why the cowlick entry site is pure bunk.

-- Dr. Finck had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, as he told the ARRB, but those photos never made it into the official record.

-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points.

-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it. 

-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- A bullet that entered at the EOP site would not have "shattered the lower right skull and half the floor" if it had been fired from a lower window of the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building.

-- A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and that entered at the debunked cowlick entry site would have entered at a 15-degree downward angle and would have been traveling at a leftward horizontal angle (right to left)--and therefore could not have exited above the right ear. Only someone willing to self-delude themselves could claim otherwise.

-- The HSCA's trajectory expert operated without knowing where the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) placed the alleged path of the bullet and without knowing that the FPP had to assume that JFK's head was tilted forward by about 27 degrees to make the path "work"--and the FPP was using the cowlick entry site. Canning put the forward tilt of JFK's head at just 11 degrees.

Andrew Mason's reply is gibberish. The WC's own diagram of the bullet's alleged path (CE 388) has Kennedy leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, as scholars have been noting for decades. See https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm.

-- One of the HSCA's radiologists noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

-- The back-of-head fragment within the 6.5 mm object is below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means it could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom. This is one of the cold, hard facts of physics that Donahue zeroed in on as he delved into the forensic evidence regarding the 6.5 mm object.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the 6.5 mm object would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

[John Mytton]

LOL! Oh my goodness. You once again prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. For the benefit of newcomers, I should list all the stunning howlers you have provided over just the last three years in this forum, but interested readers can check out our exchanges earlier in this thread and on threads about the SBT, the skull x-rays, the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, the backyard rifle photos, and other topics.

OMG, is there a major JFKA conspiracy theory that you don't believe?
Just how BIG is your conspiracy and have you ever considered how many people were involved in this mass deception?
Why after 60 years has not one of these thousands blabbed, because to spill the beans is human nature after all?
And most importantly your side after all this time are still no closer to a solution than Day one, how much time and how many man years of fruitless research and investigations could have been better spent helping the community and feeding the poor?

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

OMG, is there a major JFKA conspiracy theory that you don't believe?
Just how BIG is your conspiracy and have you ever considered how many people were involved in this mass deception?
Why after 60 years has not one of these thousands blabbed, because to spill the beans is human nature after all?
And most importantly your side after all this time are still no closer to a solution than Day one, how much time and how many man years of fruitless research and investigations could have been better spent helping the community and feeding the poor?

JohnM

This comical strawman argument again? Again? Are you caught in a time warp or something? You talk like we're in the 1960s still. FYI, some people have "blabbed," but your fellow flat-earthers find any and every excuse to reject their accounts.

Is there a "major" WC claim that you don't believe? The last time I saw you comment on the HSCA, you were still ignoring most of the HSCA's findings and research and quoting a handful of statements from a non-conspiracy draft of the HSCA's final report, even though Blakey has explained many times that that was a contingency draft in case the acoustical analysis found only three shots.

I think it's helpful to keep in mind that you are in a rather small minority of adults in the Western world who still believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who had no accomplices of any kind. You might wanna keep that in mind.

[John Mytton]

I think it's helpful to keep in mind that you are in a rather small minority of adults in the Western world who still believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who had no accomplices of any kind. You might wanna keep that in mind.

Aye me Hearties ye olde chestnut, unlike some i.e. you, I'm not a sheeple being mindlessly herded along with the flock but have intellectually chosen to utilize  deductive reasoning skills to draw the only inescapable conclusion.
Having lived in the real World for more than half a Century, one starts to understand People, who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. The enormous conspiracy that you suggested in your second to last post, which btw is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the mountain of conspiracy you've outlined in your book is no small undertaking and involves many compliant conspirators across a vast number of fields, who need to lie from innocent civilians, to cops walking the beat, to FBI, CIA through to the Goddam newly sworn in President of the United States, manipulate, insert manipulated evidence into microfilms, gaining access to federal departments, inserting manipulated evidence into crime scenes, create masses of altered evidence from corroborating films, then faking these films by some unknown processes, faking photographs, forging documents, modifying X-rays, and all this faked evidence is so perfect that real experts 60 years later still can't detect any signs of manipulation.

And on the other hand a lone nut took a mail order rifle to work and shot the President.

JohnM