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

[Jack Nessan]

You are totally and hopelessly clueless. You still have not read most of my previous replies in this thread, have you? Let me give you a brief history lesson on the 6.5 mm object:

1. The 6.5 mm object was first identified by the Clark Panel. Not having access to optical density (OD) analysis, they assumed, logically enough, that it was a bullet fragment, since it clearly is not a bone fragment.

2. The RC and HSCA medical panels noted the object and likewise assumed it was a bullet fragment.

3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fragment's existence. No WC apologist has yet explained how in the world this fragment could have come from an FMJ bullet that entered at the cowlick site, much less from the bullet's cross section. The HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the fragment's presence. Sturdivan simply ignored the fragment in his 2005 book.

4. Some 20 years after the HSCA, using new optical density measurement technology, Dr. David Mantik, who happens to be a physicist and a radiation oncologist, discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. He also found, using high magnification and OD analysis, that the image of the 6.5 mm object was double-exposed/ghosted over a genuine smaller fragment that is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size.

The brightness of the 6.5 mm object obscured the genuine smaller fragment within it from detection, until Dr. Mantik examined it with an OD densitometer, which he uses in his work as a radiation oncologist, and then applied high magnification to it. Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements and analysis.

5. Sturdivan only announced that he no longer believed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment after Dr. Mantik published his OD analysis in 1998. Sturdivan first rejected the object as a fragment in 1999 in emails to researchers, and he rejected it as a fragment in his 2005 book JFK Myths.

6. Sturdivan, to his great credit, began explaining in 1999 why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment but must be an artifact. He did so again in his 2005 book. However, as mentioned, he did not even try to explain the McDonnel fragment. Since he had already admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull, he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for the McDonnel fragment.

7. Moreover, Sturdivan said nothing in his 2005 book about the genuine smaller fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. He was surely aware of it, because he cited Dr. Mantik's OD analysis. Yet, he chose to ignore it, obviously because he knew he had no lone-gunman explanation for it.

This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.

Where in all of your mangled-English propaganda is there an explanation for the two separate wound paths through the brain--the cortical and subcortical damage? Where is it? How did those two wound paths get created if only one bullet struck the skull?

Where is the entrance wound that can explain the high fragment trail? Where is it? Even your own side's best wound ballistics expert has repudiated the entry site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP fabricated to try to explain the high fragment trail. Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail's existence? Huh? Why?

LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?

And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.

And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.

Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.

And I say you're lying. You repeatedly blunder all over the place over basic stuff, stuff that has been covered in numerous scholarly books on the case for conspiracy. Heck, you don't even have a good handle on the lone-gunman theory. 

More of your blah-blah sweeping general assertions based on your ignorance of JFK assassination research.  Just look at how badly you blundered over the 6.5 mm object, as we see above. You didn't even know the basics about the 6.5 mm object, not to mention the McDonnel fragment.

The only person contorting evidence is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL! Uhhhhh, how about the two bullet fragments in the back of the skull?? Did you forget about those? They certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did they? How about the bullet or fragment that caused the four-inch, dug-out bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street? That certainly didn't go "forward of JFK," did it? 

What's more, how about the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague? How do you get a bullet/fragment from JFK's skull to a curb over 250 feet away with the limousine's roll bar in between? Any fragment from JFK's head would have had to magically clear the limo's roll bar to have any chance of hitting the curb near Tague. Did the fragment have its own propulsion system that enabled it to magically fly over the roll bar? If the windshield and the windshield's chrome stopped the two fragments found in the front of the limo from leaving the limo, how in the world would another fragment from JFK's head have cleared the roll bar?

And on and on and on we could go. The problem is that your knowledge of the JFK case is very limited and that your research has been woefully biased and incomplete.

"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.

MTG--”LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
 
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
 
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.”

Seriously, you have to be told that there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome strip damage than the trajectory of the head wound of JFK? Do you think it is because JFK is sitting in the back of the car and the fragment damage takes place 10 feet in front of him. You believe that by some form of conspiratorial magic the trajectories of all three should somehow line up? Really? 

The HSCA did everything to help the conspiratorial cause, but the evidence clearly shows it was just one shooter.

“Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets could be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository.”

-----------------------------------------------------
 

So which of your statements is the correct statement. Can there be, or is it, can there not be a fragment left at the outer table? According to you and Dr. McDonnel there can be a fragment left at the outer table. According to you, there cannot be a fragment left at the outer table.

MTG--”3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table.”

MTG--”What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?”

=====================

 

You are making this way too hard. It is really simple. Here is what the truth is and it explains the assassination. There were only two shots fired that day by LHO. The rest of this nonsense is just mental masturbation over nothing. It is nothing more than wallowing around in the mud looking for evidence and taking that evidence out of context in the hopes of proving some bizarre conspiracy. Your combined explanation of the headshot makes absolutely no sense when viewed in its totality. Where are the entrance and exit wounds for the two shots? Where are the witnesses confirming two shots struck the president’s head? Zapruder’s film completely affirms there was only one shot not two that struck JFK’s head.

What is interesting and I think defines the need for a conspiracy in the mindset of people believing in a conspiracy, is the fact that Josiah Thompson knew in 1966 that LHO only fired two shots. He wrote about the shell information in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. He knew from having examined 30+ shells that the chamber mark was not on CE 543 but was on every other shell he examined that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI during testing. Even the unfired cartridge CE141 had the chamber mark. The chamber marks existence was first identified by the FBI in Hoover’s June 2nd letter to Rankin. Josiah Thompson chose to use the information in a manner that this somehow proved the existence of a second shooter instead of using it to prove the SBT and lone gunman. 

Now here it is 60+ years later and you are still taking known information and attempting to pervert it into a conspiracy. Not because there is a conspiracy but because you need one to understand what happened. Good for you to be part of the 2/3 of the people who believe but cannot even raise a question as to whether there was a conspiracy. 

 -------------------------------------

MTG--"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

This desire to be a lemming and join the crowd is definitely affecting your judgement. Maybe try to think for yourself.

Both the WC and HSCA conclusions state that the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. In reality the HSCA and WC believed there were only two shots not three. The HSCA four shot dictabelt and conspiracy nonsense were the result of the goofy thinking that took place in the 70’s. Wasn’t Gary Mack himself one of the sponsors of the Dictabelt fiasco you appear to follow.

-----------------------------------------------

MTG--”This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.”


No, I know what they are and their purpose, I just don’t think you do.

--------------------------------

It looks like you are lost and confused in all the different types of evidence. Maybe quantifying what is important and what is not will help you to understand. Here is a few to start you off. 

Important—window damage, damage to chrome strip, trajectory, Eyewitness accounts of there only having been one shot and they hear the bullet hit, fragmented bullet evidence,

Not important—Unknown artifact that is not a bullet fragment, explaining a fragmenting bullets path through the brain, frangible bullets, quantifying brain damage when everyone knows a third of it was blown in the air.


It is interesting you do understand the importance of the forward damage to the window and chrome strip. Actually, talking about it seems to make you squeal which is encouraging that you really do understand the importance.

-----------------------------------

 

MTG--”Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.”


Both Sides? You understand there is a whole other logical explanation for all this nonsense, but you choose to not believe it?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.

Doesn’t your star expert refute this? 

Again, the reason for this is it was not a bullet fragment. You and a special case expert believe it is a bullet fragment, but I don’t see where anyone else does. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

MTG--”LOL! I've discussed the window and chrome damage in numerous replies in this forum! Apparently you are blissfully unaware that some of your fellow WC apologists deny that the chrome dent happened during the shooting! Hey?
 
And how many times have I pointed out that even Dr. Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the sixth-floor-to-head trajectory? If the windshield damage does not align with the sixth-floor trajectory, how do you get the chrome dent to align with it? The chrome dent looks like a straight-on, perpendicular hit, not even close to lining up with the sixth-floor window or with a trajectory through the skull from the sixth floor.
 
And, pray tell, what fragment or bullet could have dented the windshield and the chrome? The two fragments found in the front part of the limo?! How do you get those fragments out of the skull on two separate trajectories, if the exit wound was above the right ear? Canning couldn't get the windshield damage to line up with the head shot and the sixth-floor window. He didn't even try to line up the chrome dent.”

Seriously, you have to be told that there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome strip damage than the trajectory of the head wound of JFK? Do you think it is because JFK is sitting in the back of the car and the fragment damage takes place 10 feet in front of him. You believe that by some form of conspiratorial magic the trajectories of all three should somehow line up? Really? 

The HSCA did everything to help the conspiratorial cause, but the evidence clearly shows it was just one shooter.

“Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets could be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository.”

----------------------------------------------------- 

So which of your statements is the correct statement. Can there be, or is it, can there not be a fragment left at the outer table? According to you and Dr. McDonnel there can be a fragment left at the outer table. According to you, there cannot be a fragment left at the outer table.

MTG--”3. One of the HSCA consultant radiologists, Dr. G. M. McDonnel, discovered a small fragment near the 6.5 mm object between the galea and the outer table.”

MTG--”What?! Do you have a reading comprehension problem and/or a memory problem? No, I do not agree that an FMJ bullet can leave a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull, much less a cross-section fragment. It is hard to fathom how you could conclude this from what I said, when I said the exact opposite. I've been saying the exact opposite from Day 1 of this thread. Can you read?”

===================== 

You are making this way too hard. It is really simple. Here is what the truth is and it explains the assassination. There were only two shots fired that day by LHO. The rest of this nonsense is just mental masturbation over nothing. It is nothing more than wallowing around in the mud looking for evidence and taking that evidence out of context in the hopes of proving some bizarre conspiracy. Your combined explanation of the headshot makes absolutely no sense when viewed in its totality. Where are the entrance and exit wounds for the two shots? Where are the witnesses confirming two shots struck the president’s head? Zapruder’s film completely affirms there was only one shot not two that struck JFK’s head.

What is interesting and I think defines the need for a conspiracy in the mindset of people believing in a conspiracy, is the fact that Josiah Thompson knew in 1966 that LHO only fired two shots. He wrote about the shell information in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. He knew from having examined 30+ shells that the chamber mark was not on CE 543 but was on every other shell he examined that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI during testing. Even the unfired cartridge CE141 had the chamber mark. The chamber marks existence was first identified by the FBI in Hoover’s June 2nd letter to Rankin. Josiah Thompson chose to use the information in a manner that this somehow proved the existence of a second shooter instead of using it to prove the SBT and lone gunman. 

Now here it is 60+ years later and you are still taking known information and attempting to pervert it into a conspiracy. Not because there is a conspiracy but because you need one to understand what happened. Good for you to be part of the 2/3 of the people who believe but cannot even raise a question as to whether there was a conspiracy. 

 -------------------------------------

MTG--"Strange beliefs"? That's funny, since about 2/3 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman myth. You seem to keep forgetting that you are speaking for a small minority of people in the Western world. Your comical SBT has been the butt of jokes in Hollywood movies for years. We now know that even two members of the WC rejected the SBT, as did LBJ. A select committee of the U.S. House concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen fired at JFK, and that four shots were fired.

This desire to be a lemming and join the crowd is definitely affecting your judgement. Maybe try to think for yourself.

Both the WC and HSCA conclusions state that the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. In reality the HSCA and WC believed there were only two shots not three. The HSCA four shot dictabelt and conspiracy nonsense were the result of the goofy thinking that took place in the 70’s. Wasn’t Gary Mack himself one of the sponsors of the Dictabelt fiasco you appear to follow.

-----------------------------------------------

MTG--”This is just brainwashed, uninformed gibberish. You realize that a frangible bullet is an "exploding bullet," right? Do you even understand how frangible bullets behave? Google it.”


No, I know what they are and their purpose, I just don’t think you do.

--------------------------------

It looks like you are lost and confused in all the different types of evidence. Maybe quantifying what is important and what is not will help you to understand. Here is a few to start you off. 

Important—window damage, damage to chrome strip, trajectory, Eyewitness accounts of there only having been one shot and they hear the bullet hit, fragmented bullet evidence,

Not important—Unknown artifact that is not a bullet fragment, explaining a fragmenting bullets path through the brain, frangible bullets, quantifying brain damage when everyone knows a third of it was blown in the air.

It is interesting you do understand the importance of the forward damage to the window and chrome strip. Actually, talking about it seems to make you squeal which is encouraging that you really do understand the importance.

----------------------------------- 

MTG--”Every time I respond to you, I have to educate you on stuff that you should already know, stuff that you would know if had bothered to read both sides.”


Both Sides? You understand there is a whole other logical explanation for all this nonsense, but you choose to not believe it?

Again, no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it entered the skull, much less another fragment between the galea and the outer table. Your side's best wound ballistics expert has explained why an FMJ missile will not leave a fragment, much less a cross-section fragment, on the outer table as it enters the skull.

Doesn’t your star expert refute this? 

Again, the reason for this is it was not a bullet fragment. You and a special case expert believe it is a bullet fragment, but I don’t see where anyone else does.

This has got to be the most pitiful, witless reply I have ever read on any JFK forum. You either suffer from a serious reading comprehension problem or you must think that everyone else does. If this were a private dialogue, I would not even bother responding. But, since this is a public dialogue, I will reply by making the following points:

1. There are at least two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull: the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. Those fragments could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has explained quite capably why no FMJ bullet would or could have left a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull. Several others ballistics and forensic experts have likewise noted that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on the outer table, much less between the outer table and the galea (i.e., the McDonnel fragment), when they penetrate skulls. No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has done so.

2. The only feasible, rational, scientific explanation for those fragments is that they are ricochet fragments. We now know that the Clark Panel privately believed that the 6.5 mm "fragment" was a ricochet fragment. Not having the benefit of OD analysis, the panel did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that there is a genuine smaller fragment within the object's image.

We know from a number of eyewitness accounts that a bullet struck the pavement near and behind the limousine soon after the limo turned onto Elm Street. The two back-of-head fragments came from the bullet that struck the pavement.

Even Gerald Posner admits that the accounts of a pavement strike are credible and that a bullet did strike the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting sequence. (However, Posner tries to explain the pavement strike with his bizarre tree-limb-collision theory in which the bullet split apart after hitting a limb of the intervening oak tree and sent one fragment sharply downward to strike the pavement behind the limo, and magically sent another fragment through the other tree limbs to fly over 400 feet, then strike the curb near Tague with enough force to chip the curb, and then send a piece of concrete streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face!)

3. To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.

Lead bullets can leave fragments on the outer table and in the scalp when they penetrate the skull. However, of course, your theory requires that only FMJ ammo was used. Also, there is no entry wound that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit the two back-of-head fragments, and, as noted, your theory cannot allow for a lead bullet anyway.

4. Uh, yes, absolutely, the windshield and chrome damage should at least roughly align with any alleged trajectory from the sixth-floor window through the skull, specifically with a trajectory from the alleged sniper's window and then to and through a point above the right ear.

A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.

When Congressman Fithian questioned Canning on this specific issue, why didn't Canning say, "Oh, we would never expect the windshield damage to align with the path of the bullet that struck the head"?

And why do you suppose Canning did not even try to align the chrome damage with the lone-gunman headshot trajectory? Obviously, if the windshield damage and the headshot trajectory "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment," the chrome damage would be even more unaligned with the headshot trajectory.

Moreover, I notice you guys have said nothing about the fact that to get the cowlick site to align with a shot from the sixth-floor window, Canning found it necessary to move JFK nearly 2 feet to the left, almost to the middle of the seat (HSCA exhibit F-138)--yet in his SBT trajectory diagram, Canning put JFK flush against the right side of the limo (HSCA exhibit F-144).

5. Among many other evasions, I noticed you ducked my question about what fragments could have caused the windshield and chrome damage. The two fragments found in the limo are CE 567 and CE 569. CE 567 was found on the middle-front seat, while CE 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the driver's seat. Do you see the problem? Think about how much velocity the fragments would have needed to dent the chrome and crack the windshield, and then think about how those fragments could have ended up on the floor to the right of the driver's seat and on the middle seat. Think about it.

6. You were obviously unaware of the fact that for years WC apologists denied that the chrome dent occurred during the shooting. In fact, a few of the worst WC apologists still make this claim. SS chief James Rowley falsely asserted that the chrome dent was made during "routine maintenance" in November 1961. The WC pretended there was doubt about whether the chrome dent happened during the shooting, but admitted that FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier believed the dent was made by a fragment traveling at a "fairly high velocity."

Rowley's lie about the chrome dent was refuted, and any alleged "doubt" that the dent was made during the shooting was removed, when photographic evidence was found that proved that the chrome topping was undented before the assassination.

7. What fragment from JFK's head could have dented the back of the rearview mirror and ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor right beside the right side of the driver's seat? To repeat, we're talking about the back of the rearview mirror, not the side or the front, but the back. That fragment must have ricocheted off the windshield and then struck the back of the mirror. Now, how on this planet could a bullet that bounced off the windshield and hit the back of the mirror have ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor to the right of the driver's seat? Think about that.

8. I notice you declined to explain what entry site could have caused the high fragment trail and why the autopsy doctors failed to mention this obvious fragment trail in the autopsy report.

9. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage in the brain, far below the cowlick area and with no connecting path or fragment trail to the much-higher cortical damage. Ignoring this unsolvable problem won't make it go away. We both know that your side cannot explain the subcortical damage.

10. Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html

11. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet could have entered at the debunked cowlick entry site when the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site. If a bullet had entered there, the underlying cerebral cortex would have been severely damaged. This is one of the reasons that even your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site and why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has likewise rejected the site. The WC's three medical experts all adamantly rejected the cowlick site, by the way, as did the chief autopsy photographer who took photos of the rear head entry wound.

[Jack Nessan]

This has got to be the most pitiful, witless reply I have ever read on any JFK forum. You either suffer from a serious reading comprehension problem or you must think that everyone else does. If this were a private dialogue, I would not even bother responding. But, since this is a public dialogue, I will reply by making the following points:

1. There are at least two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull: the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. Those fragments could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has explained quite capably why no FMJ bullet would or could have left a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull. Several others ballistics and forensic experts have likewise noted that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on the outer table, much less between the outer table and the galea (i.e., the McDonnel fragment), when they penetrate skulls. No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has done so.

2. The only feasible, rational, scientific explanation for those fragments is that they are ricochet fragments. We now know that the Clark Panel privately believed that the 6.5 mm "fragment" was a ricochet fragment. Not having the benefit of OD analysis, the panel did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that there is a genuine smaller fragment within the object's image.

We know from a number of eyewitness accounts that a bullet struck the pavement near and behind the limousine soon after the limo turned onto Elm Street. The two back-of-head fragments came from the bullet that struck the pavement.

Even Gerald Posner admits that the accounts of a pavement strike are credible and that a bullet did strike the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting sequence. (However, Posner tries to explain the pavement strike with his bizarre tree-limb-collision theory in which the bullet split apart after hitting a limb of the intervening oak tree and sent one fragment sharply downward to strike the pavement behind the limo, and magically sent another fragment through the other tree limbs to fly over 400 feet, then strike the curb near Tague with enough force to chip the curb, and then send a piece of concrete streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face!)

3. To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.

Lead bullets can leave fragments on the outer table and in the scalp when they penetrate the skull. However, of course, your theory requires that only FMJ ammo was used. Also, there is no entry wound that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit the two back-of-head fragments, and, as noted, your theory cannot allow for a lead bullet anyway.

4. Uh, yes, absolutely, the windshield and chrome damage should at least roughly align with any alleged trajectory from the sixth-floor window through the skull, specifically with a trajectory from the alleged sniper's window and then to and through a point above the right ear.

A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.

When Congressman Fithian questioned Canning on this specific issue, why didn't Canning say, "Oh, we would never expect the windshield damage to align with the path of the bullet that struck the head"?

And why do you suppose Canning did not even try to align the chrome damage with the lone-gunman headshot trajectory? Obviously, if the windshield damage and the headshot trajectory "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment," the chrome damage would be even more unaligned with the headshot trajectory.

Moreover, I notice you guys have said nothing about the fact that to get the cowlick site to align with a shot from the sixth-floor window, Canning found it necessary to move JFK nearly 2 feet to the left, almost to the middle of the seat (HSCA exhibit F-138)--yet in his SBT trajectory diagram, Canning put JFK flush against the right side of the limo (HSCA exhibit F-144).

5. Among many other evasions, I noticed you ducked my question about what fragments could have caused the windshield and chrome damage. The two fragments found in the limo are CE 567 and CE 569. CE 567 was found on the middle-front seat, while CE 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the driver's seat. Do you see the problem? Think about how much velocity the fragments would have needed to dent the chrome and crack the windshield, and then think about how those fragments could have ended up on the floor to the right of the driver's seat and on the middle seat. Think about it.

6. You were obviously unaware of the fact that for years WC apologists denied that the chrome dent occurred during the shooting. In fact, a few of the worst WC apologists still make this claim. SS chief James Rowley falsely asserted that the chrome dent was made during "routine maintenance" in November 1961. The WC pretended there was doubt about whether the chrome dent happened during the shooting, but admitted that FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier believed the dent was made by a fragment traveling at a "fairly high velocity."

Rowley's lie about the chrome dent was refuted, and any alleged "doubt" that the dent was made during the shooting was removed, when photographic evidence was found that proved that the chrome topping was undented before the assassination.

7. What fragment from JFK's head could have dented the back of the rearview mirror and ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor right beside the right side of the driver's seat? To repeat, we're talking about the back of the rearview mirror, not the side or the front, but the back. That fragment must have ricocheted off the windshield and then struck the back of the mirror. Now, how on this planet could a bullet that bounced off the windshield and hit the back of the mirror have ended up either on the middle seat or on the floor to the right of the driver's seat? Think about that.

8. I notice you declined to explain what entry site could have caused the high fragment trail and why the autopsy doctors failed to mention this obvious fragment trail in the autopsy report.

9. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage in the brain, far below the cowlick area and with no connecting path or fragment trail to the much-higher cortical damage. Ignoring this unsolvable problem won't make it go away. We both know that your side cannot explain the subcortical damage.

10. Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html

11. I notice you declined to explain how a bullet could have entered at the debunked cowlick entry site when the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick site. If a bullet had entered there, the underlying cerebral cortex would have been severely damaged. This is one of the reasons that even your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site and why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has likewise rejected the site. The WC's three medical experts all adamantly rejected the cowlick site, by the way, as did the chief autopsy photographer who took photos of the rear head entry wound.

MTG-”To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.”

I think the basic point I grasp is the fact you are making all this nonsense up on the fly. That is why one thought never tracks from another. So, they could be fragments from LHO’s gun or not? Just now you have added a ricochet to the mix of improbabilities taking place with this one shot. All of this posting and gyrating because you can not accept the fact LHO fired two shots.

Let’s look at the MTG model as it was slowly dribbled out and then presented as fact;

Two shots

One with a frangible bullet

Two entrance wounds and no exit wounds

Bullet fragments that are the result of a stray shot hitting the pavement and depositing two fragments in the exact spot that later would be an entrance wound from LHO’s rifle shot.

Is there a concise explanation of what you believe took place with this shot. To date it is a rambling collection of odd beliefs that don’t necessarily track from one thought to the next. Seriously, two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. Can see why you are met with skepticism?

-------------------------------------

You are having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal?

You post an article from James DiEugenio as something someone should actually read. Really. I feel cheated out of the 5 seconds it took to hit the link and read his name and click off.

Pat Speer is uber-cautious? Since when? He has a great website but cautious would be another thing.

--------------------

The EOP site vs Cowlick site seems to be causing you great difficulty. Do you even think JFK was shot in the back of the head or not? I would think the WC had the body there in front of them and should have seen the hole. I am just guessing because you have scatter gunned approach to your thinking, but if this is about trajectory, Sturdivan explains what happens with the bullet you really need to read his testimony.

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

MTG-”To put it as simply as possible so that perhaps you will finally grasp this basic point, if you truly have not grasped this point already, yes, bullet fragments can be deposited on the outer table and in the layers of the scalp, but they can only do so in two circumstances: (1) if they are ricochet fragments from a bullet or large fragment that strikes within range of the skull, or (2) if they are fragments from a lead bullet that strikes the skull.”

I think the basic point I grasp is the fact you are making all this nonsense up on the fly. That is why one thought never tracks from another. So, they could be fragments from LHO’s gun or not? Just now you have added a ricochet to the mix of improbabilities taking place with this one shot. All of this posting and gyrating because you can not accept the fact LHO fired two shots.

Let’s look at the MTG model as it was slowly dribbled out and then presented as fact;

Two shots

One with a frangible bullet

Two entrance wounds and no exit wounds

Bullet fragments that are the result of a stray shot hitting the pavement and depositing two fragments in the exact spot that later would be an entrance wound from LHO’s rifle shot.

Is there a concise explanation of what you believe took place with this shot. To date it is a rambling collection of odd beliefs that don’t necessarily track from one thought to the next. Seriously, two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. Can see why you are met with skepticism?

-------------------------------------

You are having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal?

You post an article from James DiEugenio as something someone should actually read. Really. I feel cheated out of the 5 seconds it took to hit the link and read his name and click off.

Pat Speer is uber-cautious? Since when? He has a great website but cautious would be another thing.

--------------------

The EOP site vs Cowlick site seems to be causing you great difficulty. Do you even think JFK was shot in the back of the head or not? I would think the WC had the body there in front of them and should have seen the hole. I am just guessing because you have scatter gunned approach to your thinking, but if this is about trajectory, Sturdivan explains what happens with the bullet you really need to read his testimony.

This is supposed to be your reply to the points I made? You either lack the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence being presented to you or else you are pretending that you don't understand them. This is the only thing I can conclude from your reply. I have put the facts before you in the simplest language I can muster, but you still either just don't grasp them or else you are purposely (and embarrassingly) pretending you don't get them. Let me ask some questions:

What in the world could lead to believe that the EOP site vs. the cowlick site is causing me "great difficulty"? What "great difficulty" are you talking about?

How could you not have grasped by now that I have said repeatedly that JFK was hit in the back of the head and that the bullet entered at the EOP site? How could have you failed to grasp this point by now?

How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?

As I think I've made quite clear, I posit one shot to the EOP and one shot to the right temple. These two entry points explain the cortical damage, the subcortical damage, and the high fragment trail. (I haven't spent much time on the exit points in this thread, but I accept as accurate the dozens of accounts of a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. This was the exit point for the right-temple shot. I believe that the EOP shot possibly did not leave the skull but that the bullet material from this shot was removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne. This would explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the skull x-rays.)

Regarding Sturdivan's testimony, why did you ignore the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now and as has been known for years, Sturdivan was never shown the original/unenhanced skull x-rays but only the enhanced ones before he testified? Do you not understand that because Sturdivan had not seen the unenhanced originals before he testified, he was unaware of the huge cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region?

Have you read Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, in which he explains in some detail why the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment, in which he explains that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments in the outer table as they penetrate skulls, and in which he repudiates the cowlick entry site?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?

Will you ever try to explain how a bullet that entered at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage far below the site while also causing the cortical damage, given the fact that there is no connection of any kind between them? There's no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing that connects that cortical damage and the subcortical damage. If only one bullet entered the skull, what caused the subcortical damage?

Why do you say that Pat Speer is not uber cautious? Are you aware that most other researchers regard him as being extremely cautious, and that many WC apologists cite his hyper-cautious research on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays?

Will you ever try to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? The trail is above the cowlick site and does not extend to/from it. What entry site could have caused that trail?

Are you ever going to explain the origin of the two back-of-head fragments? I notice this is another issue you ducked. Since FMJ bullets do not and cannot deposit fragments, especially not from their cross section, on the outer table or scalp when they penetrate skulls, where did those fragments come from?

Speaking of those two back-of-head fragments, are you ever going to identify the entry site with which they can be associated? (I'll save you some time: there isn't one.)

Given that I talked about the cracks in the windshield and the chrome dent, what could have led you to conclude that I am "having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal"? That's just baffling. It's as if you only understand half of the words I'm using or something. Is the problem that your brain simply cannot process any information that contradicts your version of the shooting?

Why did you decline to explain how a bullet fragment that ricocheted off the windshield and dented the back of the rearview mirror could have ended up on the middle seat or on the floor on the right side of the driver's seat? How could that have worked? How could that have happened?

Why did you decline to explain why Canning did not even try to align the chrome dent with the headshot trajectory?

Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?

What about Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on NAA and the JFK case? I notice you said nothing about it.

What about the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Wexler study on NAA and the JFK case? (Dr. Aguilar discusses it at length in his article.) Here's an article on the study in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?

[John Mytton]

We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?

OMG, 16 surfaces that sounds like a lot, what empirical proof do you have that each of these spattered surfaces adds up to be more than 1 to 2 ounces of brains, did anybody collect and/or describe the chunk sizes or are you as usual guessing?

This lower quality Zapruder film GIF shows a mist of exploding matter and this alone would reach quite a lot of varying surfaces.



I don't know if you counted the inside of Kennedy's limo windshield as one of the surfaces but what is there is quite small!



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

You realize that your misleading goofy graphic contradicts itself, right? And why do you keep ignoring HSCA exhibit F-32? Because it shows that Riley's placement of the cowlick site agrees with the HSCA FPP's placement of the site?

[Michael T. Griffith]

OMG, 16 surfaces that sounds like a lot, what empirical proof do you have that each of these spattered surfaces adds up to be more than 1 to 2 ounces of brains, did anybody collect and/or describe the chunk sizes or are you as usual guessing?

Just the portion of JFK's brain that Jackie was able to collect was enough that she could hold it in her hands when she brought it into the Parkland ER.

There was brain matter splattered inside the right-rear part of the limo, on the follow-up car's windshield, on the two left-trailing patrolmen's windshields, on Agent Kinney's clothes, on Officer Hargis's clothes, etc., etc. These are only some of the surfaces onto which brain matter was splattered.

Are you really going to suggest that all of this brain matter amounted to no more than 2 ounces? Really?

Did you forget about the fact that the skull x-rays show a large amount of right brain missing? Dr. Fred Hodges of the RC medical panel noted this in his report:

---------------------------------------
AP and two lateral views show. . . . A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air. (p. 2, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3)
---------------------------------------

Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fact with OD measurements. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick admitted that the dark area in the front on the skull x-rays indicates a substantive amount of missing brain.

This lower quality Zapruder film GIF shows a mist of exploding matter and this alone would reach quite a lot of varying surfaces.

I don't know if you counted the inside of Kennedy's limo windshield as one of the surfaces but what is there is quite small!

JohnM

Actually, no, I did not count the inside of the limo's windshield. Here are the surfaces I counted:

• The back seat of JFK’s limousine.
• The right-rear passenger door of the limo.
• The trunk/rear hood of the limo.
• The front seat of the limo (per Roy Kellerman).
• Roy Kellerman's coat ("it was all over my coat").
• The back of William Greer's coat (per Greer himself, and per Kellerman).
• Governor Connally's clothes.
• Nellie Connally's clothes.
• Officer Martin's clothes.
• Officer Hargis's clothes.
• Officer Martin's motorcycle.
• Officer Hargis's motorcycle.
• Sam Kinney's clothes (riding in the follow-up car).
• The windshield of the follow-up car.
• The drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart.
• Jackie's dress (she said JFK's brains were "all over me").

I should add that Tom Robinson, one of the morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, said that the amount of brain tissue missing from JFK's brain was about the size of a closed fist. A closed fist would be equal in size to at least one-third of an average male brain. (The male brain is typically about 5.5 inches wide, 6.5 inches long, and 3.6 inches high.)

Anyone who argues that all of this brain matter amounted to no more than 2 ounces of tissue is probably brainwashed beyond recovery. And, again, the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain to be missing, which, among other things, proves that the brain photos are fraudulent. No wonder that the autopsy photographer who took the brain photos said that the existing brain photos were not the ones he took.

[Jack Nessan]

This is supposed to be your reply to the points I made? You either lack the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence being presented to you or else you are pretending that you don't understand them. This is the only thing I can conclude from your reply. I have put the facts before you in the simplest language I can muster, but you still either just don't grasp them or else you are purposely (and embarrassingly) pretending you don't get them. Let me ask some questions:

What in the world could lead to believe that the EOP site vs. the cowlick site is causing me "great difficulty"? What "great difficulty" are you talking about?

How could you not have grasped by now that I have said repeatedly that JFK was hit in the back of the head and that the bullet entered at the EOP site? How could have you failed to grasp this point by now?

How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?

As I think I've made quite clear, I posit one shot to the EOP and one shot to the right temple. These two entry points explain the cortical damage, the subcortical damage, and the high fragment trail. (I haven't spent much time on the exit points in this thread, but I accept as accurate the dozens of accounts of a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. This was the exit point for the right-temple shot. I believe that the EOP shot possibly did not leave the skull but that the bullet material from this shot was removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne. This would explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the skull x-rays.)

Regarding Sturdivan's testimony, why did you ignore the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now and as has been known for years, Sturdivan was never shown the original/unenhanced skull x-rays but only the enhanced ones before he testified? Do you not understand that because Sturdivan had not seen the unenhanced originals before he testified, he was unaware of the huge cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region?

Have you read Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, in which he explains in some detail why the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment, in which he explains that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments in the outer table as they penetrate skulls, and in which he repudiates the cowlick entry site?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site? How could a bullet have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex?

Will you ever try to explain how a bullet that entered at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage far below the site while also causing the cortical damage, given the fact that there is no connection of any kind between them? There's no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing that connects that cortical damage and the subcortical damage. If only one bullet entered the skull, what caused the subcortical damage?

Why do you say that Pat Speer is not uber cautious? Are you aware that most other researchers regard him as being extremely cautious, and that many WC apologists cite his hyper-cautious research on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays?

Will you ever try to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? The trail is above the cowlick site and does not extend to/from it. What entry site could have caused that trail?

Are you ever going to explain the origin of the two back-of-head fragments? I notice this is another issue you ducked. Since FMJ bullets do not and cannot deposit fragments, especially not from their cross section, on the outer table or scalp when they penetrate skulls, where did those fragments come from?

Speaking of those two back-of-head fragments, are you ever going to identify the entry site with which they can be associated? (I'll save you some time: there isn't one.)

Given that I talked about the cracks in the windshield and the chrome dent, what could have led you to conclude that I am "having a problem understanding bullet fragments can crack windows and dent metal"? That's just baffling. It's as if you only understand half of the words I'm using or something. Is the problem that your brain simply cannot process any information that contradicts your version of the shooting?

Why did you decline to explain how a bullet fragment that ricocheted off the windshield and dented the back of the rearview mirror could have ended up on the middle seat or on the floor on the right side of the driver's seat? How could that have worked? How could that have happened?

Why did you decline to explain why Canning did not even try to align the chrome dent with the headshot trajectory?

Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?

What about Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on NAA and the JFK case? I notice you said nothing about it.

What about the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Wexler study on NAA and the JFK case? (Dr. Aguilar discusses it at length in his article.) Here's an article on the study in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?

 

Any chance you will ever spell what you believe took place on the head shot? It is extremely hard to grasp the idea here when you are all over the board about what took place. Two shooters then not two shooters, Frangible bullets then not frangible bullets, a shot from behind and the front and then not a shot from the front, two entrance wounds and then not two entrance wounds.

I guess your two shooters model is dead in the water now? It appears reality seems to be creeping into your theory. It appears you have decided that the WC assessment of the head shot near the EOP is better than the HSCA’s cowlick sight. If you no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets is part of your theory, this is progress. Welcome to the reality that Oswald did it alone. 

----------------------------------   

MTG __”Regarding your unfortunate, embarrassing repetition of the claim that neutron activation analysis (NAA) has proved that the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Oswald's alleged ammo, you are years behind the information curve. The NAA argument was debunked nearly 20 years ago. Here's some homework for you so you can get up to speed on this issue:”
 

The NAA was never debunked by anyone let alone DiEuginio. Maybe you should actually read the Tobin report. The Tobin report is actually a waste of time and proved nothing. Why are all of your ideas nothing but an outgrowth of someone else’s opinion? Maybe that is why you are unable to sort this issue out, you do not think for yourself.

You answered your own questions about the chrome and window damage and what happened to the fragments. Some remained in the car, some did not but they obviously went forward because the lone shot was from behind. Maybe you should explain what you think should have happened with the fragments. You do understand they are just fragments splintered off a bullet? Your shot from the front looks to be impossible with the fragments hitting in front of JFK. I suppose that would explain your reluctance to fully explain your theory. 

--------------------------

MTG--”Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?"

I have read a few of his ramblings. I will not waste 1 more second of my time reading about something DiEugenio thinks. If it so important for you to repeat what he vomits out of his mouth feel free to quote him. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to verbalize that nonsense.
 

MTG--”Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show the entire brain missing virtually no tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?”

Once again you are going on about how much of the brain is missing. Why is that such a focal point? Everyone knows what happened to it. Do you actually think they substituted another brain to confuse you and then for what reason? Frame Z313 says it all does it not?
-----------------------------------------------

MTG--”A bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees. Why do you suppose that Dr. Canning noted that the windshield damage did not align vertically with the sixth-floor-window-through-head trajectory? If it did not matter, if no one would expect the damage to align with that trajectory, why did he even mention it? He said the windshield damage "did not appear to be in particularly good slope alignment" with the alleged headshot trajectory.”
 

You really need to have a picture drawing of why there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome damage than the trajectory for the shot that hit JFK? They are at least 10 feet apart.

Why did he state it? The fragments possibly could have followed the same trajectory, but they didn’t, and he is just stating that fact. Their dispersion was random not necessarily linear. Actually, why do you need this explained for you to understand. There is 10 to 15 feet difference in impact points. It can only be two different trajectories.
-----------------
Good luck with the mysterious two bullet fragments that aren’t really bullet fragments but were supposedly deposited by a ricochet from a shot that never happened. The experts obviously had a hard time explaining it in the context that the fragments came from a bullet when in reality they did not. Sorry but the hard cold reality of it is they hold no significance.