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

[John Mytton]

Thank you for the compliment, JohnM. I believe some people struggle with 3D visualization. Remember when Cartoon Ernie was here, and Craig and you would point out some error he made because he didn't allow for perspective? Ernie thought perspective was an LN trick.

Griffith can't see the problem with applying a 2D orthographic image (representing a level horizontal plane) to a photograph taken obliquely. Add to that the nearness of the camera to the object that induced a substantial amount of perspective.

Yeah, cartoon Ernie was quite the character but had bugger all knowledge of how perspective alters the proportions of his 3D models, for example when debating the positions of the motorcycles in relation to Kennedy's Limo, he modelled Altgens 6 from a position that was way to close and subsequently this altered the relevant distances but when I supplied a more realistic Sketchup image based on Altgens actual location he refused to acknowledge his mistake, so I politely asked him to recalculate his 3D image with the correct location of Altgens and was only met with the chirping of crickets.

And as for Craig Lamson, he was a true photographic expert who taught me a lot about image analysis, and I remember the time when he completely destroyed Weidmann's claim to be the Manager of Managers. Hilarious! 

Craig Lamson collated Martin Weidmann's claims.

LAMSON: "Wow, what a tangled mess. You own the company but need to ALLOW yourself time off and will take it even if you lose a client, but you don't really do much work because its the employees doing it all, but you like being at work, even though you don't do anything and are not needed and are just taking up space, but you don't have a real life so you just clutter up the office doing nothing. wow"

 

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!

Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory? JohnM

LOL! WC apologists have flexed and morphed and twisted all over the place over the years to reinforce the farcical lone-gunman theory--a theory that about 2/3 of the Western world rejects, I might reiterate.

Do I need to remind you that for years your side insisted that a bullet--from the sixth-floor window--struck slightly above the EOP? Do I need to remind you that for years your side said that the alleged magic bullet struck above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck? Do I need to remind you that the same HSCA medical panel that you just finished praising determined that the alleged magic bullet struck below the throat wound and that the back wound shows that the bullet entered at a slightly upward angle? Do I need to remind you that your side's leading wound ballistics expert repudiated the cowlick entry site in 2005, and that many WC apologists have followed his lead? Do I need to remind you that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190, but that most WC apologists reject this observable fact because it destroys the current version of the single-bullet theory, even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?

Let's consider some of the experts who have said the HSCA medical panel was wrong about the rear head entry wound's location and wrong about the wound's alleged presence on the autopsy skull x-rays:

-- Dr. Doug Ubelaker (ARRB forensic anthropologist)
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick (ARRB forensic radiologist)
-- Dr. Pierre Finck (forensic pathologist, chief of wound ballistics at the AFIP, and one of the three JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. James Humes (chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell (chief of pathology at the National Naval Medical School and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD, a medical doctor who has conducted assassination-related wound ballistics tests)
-- Dr. David Mantik (PhD in physics and MD in radiation oncology with a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a former member of the HSCA medical panel--Wecht has repudiated the cowlick entry site)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (MD in neuroscience, a former professor at the Yale School of Medicine, a former director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California-San Diego)
-- Dr. Fred Hodges (a neurologic radiologist, chief of neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, a former president of the American Society of Neuroradiology, and a former member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel)

This is a partial list.

Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting. He proved that the autopsy photos destroy the cowlick entry site, that the cowlick entry site cannot explain the subcortical damage, and that the clearly separate and unconnected wound paths seen in the autopsy materials absolutely prove that two bullets hit JFK in the head.

I have already explained my view of the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. Let me do so again. Pay attention this time: The skull x-rays are indeed x-rays of JFK's skull, but we know from hard scientific evidence that they have been altered--and, as we have seen, you guys have no answer for this evidence.

The autopsy photos now in evidence are only part of the autopsy photos that were taken. We have known for years now that there was a second set of autopsy photos. The ARRB interviewed the Navy photo technician who processed the second set of autopsy photos, and several people who saw those photos said they showed a large wound in the back of the head.

The top-of-head autopsy photos destroy the cowlick site, since they show intact cerebral cortex at the site' location, proving that no bullet entered at the site. I am unsure whether the top-of-head photos have been doctored, as some photographic experts have argued, or whether they were taken after the illicit pre-autopsy surgery to the head and thus represent the altered condition of the top of the head and not the head's condition as it existed in Dallas (which would explain why the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with gauze saw no large wound above the right ear).

But, hey, if you insist that the top-of-head photos are authentic and accurate, then you must face the fact that those photos destroy the cowlick entry site. So far, your and your fellow WC apologists' only answer has been the demonstrably false claim that Riley put the cowlick site twice as far above from the lambda as the HSCA FPP did. HSCA exhibit F-32 alone destroys this bogus, dishonest claim.

Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.

Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Jack Nessan]

LOL! WC apologists have flexed and morphed and twisted all over the place over the years to reinforce the farcical lone-gunman theory--a theory that about 2/3 of the Western world rejects, I might reiterate.

Do I need to remind you that for years your side insisted that a bullet--from the sixth-floor window--struck slightly above the EOP? Do I need to remind you that for years your side said that the alleged magic bullet struck above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck? Do I need to remind you that the same HSCA medical panel that you just finished praising determined that the alleged magic bullet struck below the throat wound and that the back wound shows that the bullet entered at a slightly upward angle? Do I need to remind you that your side's leading wound ballistics expert repudiated the cowlick entry site in 2005, and that many WC apologists have followed his lead? Do I need to remind you that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190, but that most WC apologists reject this observable fact because it destroys the current version of the single-bullet theory, even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?

Let's consider some of the experts who have said the HSCA medical panel was wrong about the rear head entry wound's location and wrong about the wound's alleged presence on the autopsy skull x-rays:

-- Dr. Doug Ubelaker (ARRB forensic anthropologist)
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick (ARRB forensic radiologist)
-- Dr. Pierre Finck (forensic pathologist, chief of wound ballistics at the AFIP, and one of the three JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. James Humes (chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell (chief of pathology at the National Naval Medical School and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD, a medical doctor who has conducted assassination-related wound ballistics tests)
-- Dr. David Mantik (PhD in physics and MD in radiation oncology with a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a former member of the HSCA medical panel--Wecht has repudiated the cowlick entry site)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (MD in neuroscience, a former professor at the Yale School of Medicine, a former director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California-San Diego)
-- Dr. Fred Hodges (a neurologic radiologist, chief of neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, a former president of the American Society of Neuroradiology, and a former member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel)

This is a partial list.

Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting. He proved that the autopsy photos destroy the cowlick entry site, that the cowlick entry site cannot explain the subcortical damage, and that the clearly separate and unconnected wound paths seen in the autopsy materials absolutely prove that two bullets hit JFK in the head.

I have already explained my view of the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. Let me do so again. Pay attention this time: The skull x-rays are indeed x-rays of JFK's skull, but we know from hard scientific evidence that they have been altered--and, as we have seen, you guys have no answer for this evidence.

The autopsy photos now in evidence are only part of the autopsy photos that were taken. We have known for years now that there was a second set of autopsy photos. The ARRB interviewed the Navy photo technician who processed the second set of autopsy photos, and several people who saw those photos said they showed a large wound in the back of the head.

The top-of-head autopsy photos destroy the cowlick site, since they show intact cerebral cortex at the site' location, proving that no bullet entered at the site. I am unsure whether the top-of-head photos have been doctored, as some photographic experts have argued, or whether they were taken after the illicit pre-autopsy surgery to the head and thus represent the altered condition of the top of the head and not the head's condition as it existed in Dallas (which would explain why the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with gauze saw no large wound above the right ear).

But, hey, if you insist that the top-of-head photos are authentic and accurate, then you must face the fact that those photos destroy the cowlick entry site. So far, your and your fellow WC apologists' only answer has been the demonstrably false claim that Riley put the cowlick site twice as far above from the lambda as the HSCA FPP did. HSCA exhibit F-32 alone destroys this bogus, dishonest claim.

Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.

Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.

Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
 
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.

This might be more of a case of you just don't want to accept reality.
 
Sturdivan explains the fragments and the deforming bullet leaving a trail of fragments along its path through the brain. You are dismissing Sturdivan’s explanation?

Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?

 Mr. STURDIVAN. Well, this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced X-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a softnosed or hollow point bullet that was fully jacketed and, therefore, not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet because in either of those cases, the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So, this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes. Incidentally, those fragments that are left by the bullet are also very small and do not move very far from their initial, from the place where they departed the bullet. Consequently, they tend to be clustered very closely around the track of the bullet.

 ------------------------------------------------
There were traces of copper left by the jacketed copper bullet on JFK’s suit coat and shirt, but you claim the same is not possible for the back of the head wound. That is really your belief?

The FBI discovered traces of copper on both JFK’s coat and shirt where the bullet entered his back.

FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 14 (maryferrell.org)     page 85

[John Mytton]

even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?

Here we go again, you're not only on record in this Forum saying the Zapruder Film is fake, you've got web pages about this "fakery" and even further than that, you've forever documented your opinion about the Zapruder Film in your book, yet you still use the Zapruder Film as proof of your latest "observation"?
This, Mr. Griffith is why you can't be taken seriously about any of your theories.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting.

The only devastation that can be seen here, is how to make heads or tails out of your latest conspiracy theory??

I, along with most LNer researchers since day one, accept the authenticated evidence as being, well, authentic. Whereas you just chop and change whichever way the wind blows, which significantly impacts the last specks of your rapidly depleting credibility.

Remember when,

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 for the record, these stereoscopic morphed images are the cornerstone images that are the basis of the latest Griffith endorsed analysis.



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here we go again, you're not only on record in this Forum saying the Zapruder Film is fake, you've got web pages about this "fakery" and even further than that, you've forever documented your opinion about the Zapruder Film in your book, yet you still use the Zapruder Film as proof of your latest "observation"?
This, Mr. Griffith is why you can't be taken seriously about any of your theories. JohnM

So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.

The only devastation that can be seen here, is how to make heads or tails out of your latest conspiracy theory??

I, along with most LNer researchers since day one, accept the authenticated evidence as being, well, authentic. Whereas you just chop and change whichever way the wind blows, which significantly impacts the last specks of your rapidly depleting credibility.

Remember when,

JohnM

What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?

Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
 
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.

This might be more of a case of you just don't want to accept reality.
 
Sturdivan explains the fragments and the deforming bullet leaving a trail of fragments along its path through the brain. You are dismissing Sturdivan’s explanation?

Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?

 Mr. STURDIVAN. Well, this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced X-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a softnosed or hollow point bullet that was fully jacketed and, therefore, not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet because in either of those cases, the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So, this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes. Incidentally, those fragments that are left by the bullet are also very small and do not move very far from their initial, from the place where they departed the bullet. Consequently, they tend to be clustered very closely around the track of the bullet.

------------------------------------------------
There were traces of copper left by the jacketed copper bullet on JFK’s suit coat and shirt, but you claim the same is not possible for the back of the head wound. That is really your belief?

The FBI discovered traces of copper on both JFK’s coat and shirt where the bullet entered his back.

FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 14 (maryferrell.org)     page 85

LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:

---------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------

Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------

Does this refresh your memory?

Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.

And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?

Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:

---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. . . .

Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.

Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head.

One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."

The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound.

The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)
---------------------------------------------------

You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.

What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?

LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:

---------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------

Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------

Does this refresh your memory?

Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.

And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?

Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:

---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. . . .

Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.

Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head.

One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."

The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound.

The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)
---------------------------------------------------

You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.

Here we go again.
U will not find one gelatine test or soap test etc in the history of the universe that shows that a fragmenting bullet leaves a cloud of fragments anywhere near the bullet's entry into the gelative or soap etc.
The fragments are all always much deeper. Even if hitting something very hard just before entry.

Wait. U said exploding bullet (i mean Sturdivan said). Ok, exploding is different. I will have to have another look.

[John Mytton]

So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

Oh, I get it, the conspirators only altered the sequences that don't affect your wacky conspiracy theories, how frigging convenient!

Anyway, I don't want to offend you and call you an amateur because that would be an insult to an amateur, it's obvious that you have never done any basic editing much less the extensive fakery that you suggest happened to the Zapruder film. Because even 1 removed frame interrupts the flow of the film and is immediately obvious.

For example you have said that they simply edited out numerous Zapruder frames* so that Clint and Jackie appeared to be close in the Nix film, and that they both appeared far away in the Zapruder Film but,
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Hill between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Jackie between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous movement of the backgrounds, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous and synchronized movement of the crowd, you didn't.

What you are inadvertently implying and clearly don't understand is that the fakery involved required separating individual elements, travelling mattes and excessively complicated compositing, each of which involved resizing, matching motion blur and integration at the granular level.

You are so far out of your depth but what the heck, how about you just say they altered the film and you can leave it at that.



Clueless Alterationist's make me SICK!

JohnM