Two Separate Wound Paths in JFK's Brain Prove Two Bullets Hit the Head

[Michael T. Griffith]

Beyond some cut and paste technobabble, you haven't presented a damn thing,

Translation: You can't explain the evidence either. I guess you're hoping that most readers are either as brainwashed as you are or that they will only read your replies and not mine. "Technobabble"? Really? Is the material that far over your head?

it's about time you extract yourself from last century and learn how to present your evidence in the visual realm, it seems that all your evidence comes from the suddenly "authentic" -cough- photo record so why don't you graphically plot the course of the two bullet paths, so for those of us with "high school" educations can follow along. If it's so blatantly obvious, this simple visual representation should be a piece of cake! JohnM

Uhhhh, Dr. Riley already did this! I linked one of his diagrams in the OP. The cortical and subcortical damage paths are described in government sources. The HSCA FPP even provided some graphics to illustrate the cortical damage. Ditto for the high fragment trail and the small fragment within the image of the AP x-rays 6.5 mm object. The large amount of missing right brain in the skull x-rays was first documented by Dr. Hodges and has been confirmed by several other medical experts.

Do you really need graphics to understand this stuff? If so, perhaps you don't belong here.

[Jerry Organ]

"Subcortical damage" is not a missile path. What reputable source claims there is an open missile channel that passed through the corpus callosum?

The superficial tears were probably caused by several factors, such as coup damage and the right hemisphere being jostled violently by the passage of the bullet that entered the cowlick area. A part of the brain also spills forward (then back into the brain case) in the Zapruder film just after the head shot.

If Quack Riley thinks the corpus callosum damage was some distance from the the large primary laceration, he either doesn't understand the metric system or he shares your aversion to perspective and visualization.

[John Mytton]

Translation: You can't explain the evidence either. I guess you're hoping that most readers are either as brainwashed as you are or that they will only read your replies and not mine. "Technobabble"? Really? Is the material that far over your head?

Uhhhh, Dr. Riley already did this! I linked one of his diagrams in the OP. The cortical and subcortical damage paths are described in government sources. The HSCA FPP even provided some graphics to illustrate the cortical damage. Ditto for the high fragment trail and the small fragment within the image of the AP x-rays 6.5 mm object. The large amount of missing right brain in the skull x-rays was first documented by Dr. Hodges and has been confirmed by several other medical experts.

Do you really need graphics to understand this stuff? If so, perhaps you don't belong here.

You can't explain the evidence either.

What's to explain, a heap of Forensic Scientist's have studied the genuine Autopsy material and as one have come to one conclusion that Kennedy was struck once from behind in the head!
Whereas you trawl through the internet and find some Kook who isn't a Forensic Scientist and who is basically a brain theorist and without the proper experience in trauma and gunshot wounds espouses a belief that other paranoid Kooks can then cream their jeans, and claim some nasty unseen conspiracy, and some of these gullible supporters can even try to sell a book or two! This industry of praying on the feeble minded really is abhorrent, are you proud of yourself?

I guess you're hoping that most readers are either as brainwashed as you are or that they will only read your replies and not mine.

Ohhh that's it isn't it, the elitist syndrome, when someone doesn't buy your Kooky theories, they're obviously not thinking for themselves and are now brainwashed!? Hilarious

"Technobabble"? Really? Is the material that far over your head?

Again this reinforces my previous point, the reason you copy and paste all these technical terms that you obviously don't understand, is that you have a massive chip on your shoulder and you want to prove to Daddy that you are finally becoming a Man!
At the end of the day, the many Forensic Scientist's who by definition have been peer reviewed, all came to the same conclusion whereas your outlier 1 specialist without the proper training begs to differ! Give me a break!

Uhhhh, Dr. Riley already did this! I linked one of his diagrams in the OP.

Yep, drawing some lines over a drawing of a generic brain is the epitome of a scientific study! -giggle-

The cortical and subcortical damage paths are described in government sources. The HSCA FPP even provided some graphics to illustrate the cortical damage.

Why do you believe this damage was cause by another bullet path? When a bullet passes through a gelatinous mass i.e. the brain, the expended pressure causes a lot of damage. EDIT I just saw Jerry's post which really puts the final nail in this nonsense. Go Jerry, go!

Do you really need graphics to understand this stuff?

When describing a theory that originated from the visual record, you don't think that graphics using the original source material would help define this analysis, you even posted Riley's crayon drawing in the OP but clearly, this is insufficient.

If so, perhaps you don't belong here.

When I discuss the JFKA visual record I will post graphics and images to illustrate my point, like in another of your threads where my response has so far been ignored.
For example;

JFK was clearly hit from behind.



And the first frame where JFK was moving back and to the left, there is no back of hole wound and no resulting expulsion of matter, proving once and for all that this motion was not caused by a bullet. And for those who propose a second bullet path based on an unprovable amateur observation really need to re-establish their life goals!



JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

Translation: You have no earthly clue how to explain the evidence I've presented to you, so you're going to pretend it's meaningless and ignore it.

Oh, the exit wound is "clearly visible on film," hey? Really? Even if we assume this claim for the sake of argument (and therefore assume that the dozens of witnesses who said they saw a large right-rear head wound were all hallucinating), how does this explain the cortical and subcortical damage, the two back-of-head bullet fragments, the high fragment trail, the right-frontal cloud of metal particles, the trajectory lines on the right lateral skull x-ray, etc., etc., etc.?

I can't believe you are still posting about this. What is it about a bullet passing through his brain and causing all kinds of damage that you do not understand. There is one entrance wound and one exit wound, do the math. I am not pretending it is meaningless. In the real world it is meaningless. Stop listening to these internet oddballs, and I am sure you will figure it out.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Beyond some cut and paste technobabble, you haven't presented a damn thing, it's about time you extract yourself from last century and learn how to present your evidence in the visual realm, it seems that all your evidence comes from the suddenly "authentic" -cough- photo record so why don't you graphically plot the course of the two bullet paths, so for those of us with "high school" educations can follow along. If it's so blatantly obvious, this simple visual representation should be a piece of cake! JohnM

I think this obvious dodge deserves further comment. I explained this issue in simple terms that anyone should be able to grasp. So did Dr. Riley. So did Martin Hay. Where was the "technobabble" in any of the statements below from my original post:

Me:

-------------------------------------------------
Let us examine in more detail the lone-gunman theory’s inability to explain the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back.
-------------------------------------------------

Dr. Riley:

-------------------------------------------------
In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well, extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. . . .
-------------------------------------------------

Martin Hay:

-------------------------------------------------
There were two separate and distinct areas of damage to the President’s brain, in the cortical and subcortical regions, and “no evidence of continuity” between the two.
-------------------------------------------------

What don't you understand about these plain statements? Where was the "technobabble" in any of these statements?

We both know that the real problem for you is that you can't explain the two separate wound paths in JFK's brain. Your version of the shooting only allows for one bullet to the head, so you have no way to explain the presence of two separate, unconnected wound paths. Since you've obviously rejected the option of admitting that your shooting scenario is wrong, you've decided to pretend that this hard evidence is meaningless and to ignore it, even though you expose yourself as a propagandist in doing so.

You're doing a similar dance around the issues of the two back-of-head fragments, the high fragment trail, the raw contradiction between the skull x-rays and the brain photos, the absence of the low fragment trail in the extant skull x-rays, the astonishing failure of the autopsy doctors to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage, and the undamaged cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site. We both know that you have no rational, sensible, plausible explanation for these issues, so you duck and dodge and bob and weave around them, constantly going off on strawman diversions and evasions.

Not one of these issues is all that technical or hard to understand. The problem is that your version of the shooting can't explain them. A quick revisiting:

-- The high fragment trail does not end/begin at, or even near, the debunked cowlick entry site. In fact, the high fragment trail is above the cowlick site. Its highest point is toward the back of the head, and from there it goes slightly downward and ends, or begins, in the cloud of tiny metal particles in the right-frontal region. How in the world could a bullet that entered at a 15-degree downward angle at the cowlick site have created that fragment trail when the trail doesn't even extend to/from the site and is above the site?

-- You have no way to explain the two back-of-head fragments--the small fragment on the lateral x-rays that is within the AP x-ray's image of the 6.5 mm object and the McDonnel fragment. Not a single expert has denied the existence of these two fragments. Even Sturdivan has admitted that the lateral x-rays show a small fragment in the back of the head that vertically aligns with the image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. The problem is that that fragment cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object, which is undeniable evidence that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is an artifact.

How did those two fragments get there? What bullet could have deposited them? Not an FMJ bullet. No one has yet found a case where an FMJ bullet deposited a fragment in the outer table or the scalp when penetrating a skull, much less two fragments and much less from its cross section. A lead bullet could have deposited those fragments, but there's no entry point that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit those fragments. They are 1 cm below the cowlick site, and the McDonnel fragment is even farther away from the site than is the other fragment. The only feasible, scientific explanation is that they are ricochet fragments from the pavement strike.

-- To all but brainwashed WC apologists, the two separate cortical and subcortical wound paths scream two bullets. Those wound paths are a matter of record. The HSCA FPP described both of them, although their description of the subcortical path was suspiciously vague. However, the autopsy doctors described the subcortical damage in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report. Thus, no WC apologist can claim or pretend that there's any doubt about the two wound paths. The problem is that you guys only have one bullet to explain those wound paths.

-- The HSCA FPP acknowledged the subcortical damage but made no effort to explain it. They knew it is well below the cortical damage. They knew that the cortical damage is above the cowlick site and that the subcortical damage is below the cowlick site. And they knew there is no connection between the two paths. So, rather than try to explain how one bullet could have created two separate wound paths, they simply ignored the issue.

-- The autopsy doctors committed an even more egregious omission by failing to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage! They described the subcortical damage in great detail, since that damage is consistent with the EOP entry wound. But, they said nothing about the cortical damage, and nothing about the high fragment trail. Why? Because they could not explain that damage and that fragment trail with the EOP entry wound, and because they were unwilling, or were not allowed, to posit two bullets to the head.

-- The autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, as even Vincent Bugliosi foolishly (and gladly) acknowledged. There is a deep laceration (cut) in the right cerebrum (the right side of the brain), but there is virtually no brain tissue missing. However, in the autopsy skull x-rays, a large portion of the right brain is missing. This was first noticed by Dr. Fred Hodges (a member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel) and has been confirmed by a number of other experts--this has also been confirmed by optical density measurements.

It is not one bit surprising that the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing brain, given the fact that a number of witnesses who saw JFK's head wound (including mortician Tom Robinson) said a large part of the brain was missing, and given the fact that we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces. But WC apologists duck and dodge over these facts because the autopsy brain photos show a brain with virtually no tissue missing (no more than 1-2 ounces).

-- The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that started at the EOP entry site and went upward to a point just above the right orbit. However, no such low fragment trail is seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.

Dr. Hodges said that on the autopsy skull x-rays that he examined, he saw tiny fragments in "a crude pathway between the right occipital bone and the right posterior mid-frontal bone" (p. 2). However, (1) this trail does not quite match the trail described in the autopsy report, although it is roughly similar to it, and (2) no other expert has seen this right-occipital-bone-to-rear-frontal-bone trail. The HSCA FPP didn't see it. The ARRB forensic experts, including the forensic radiologist, didn't see it. And Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc., haven't seen it.

It is possible that Dr. Hodges was shown JFK autopsy skull x-rays that have not been shown to other experts. If some autopsy skull x-rays do show a trail from the right occiput to the rear part of the frontal bone, this is further devastating evidence against the debunked cowlick entry site.

In any event, the bottom line is that no other expert has seen a low fragment trail on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. If such a trail was present in the skull during the autopsy, this is powerful evidence for the EOP site and against the cowlick site. When the ARRB showed Humes the skull x-rays and asked him to identify the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, he was visibly baffled and admitted he saw no fragments in the area described in the autopsy report.

[Michael T. Griffith]

To get a clearer picture of the stark difference between the two wound paths, we should keep in mind a fact that WC apologists never discuss, i.e., that the high fragment trail is a whopping 5 cm/1.96 inches above the cowlick entry site. The Clark Panel wrongly claimed that the trail aligned with the cowlick site. To its credit, the HSCA FPP acknowledged the trail's correct location, albeit only after one of its consulting radiologists, Dr. David O. Davis, identified the correct location.

In an editorial published in the journal Neurosurgery, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Gary Aguilar, and Rex Bradford discuss the location of the high fragment trail:

The radiologist for the Clark Panel, a group that preferred a 10-cm higher in-shoot, reported the fragment trail aligns perfectly with that higher position [the cowlick site], well above the lambda in parietal bone (31). It was not until HSCA consultant, David O. Davis, M.D., described it that the trail’s true location received official recognition—a full 5-cm higher than Clark had it and 15-cm higher than the pathologists reported. (After inspection of the original x-rays at the National Archives, both Drs. Wecht and Aguilar affirm the accuracy of Dr. Davis’s high placement of this quite obvious trail of fragments [Fig. C9].) ("A Neuroforensic Analysis of the Wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A Study of the Available Evidence, Eyewitness Correlations, Analysis, and Conclusions," Neurosurgery, September 2005, p. 12, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)

The cortical brain damage is above the high fragment trail. No wonder Dr. Humes omitted both the high fragment trail and the cortical damage from the autopsy report.

These facts raise a question: Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? Where is the trail that the autopsy doctors insisted started near the EOP site and extended to a point just above the right orbit? It boggles the mind to think that they were describing the high fragment trail, whose lowest point is at least 3 inches above the EOP site and whose highest point is about 4 inches above the EOP site. Did they fabricate the low fragment trail? Or, was the low fragment trail removed from the skull x-rays after the autopsy?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Only some crackpot from Deep Politics thinks there can be two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets. This is what i came to realize it was, just nonsense.

Allow me to bump this thread by circling back to this confused, unseemly dodge.

Are you actually claiming that Dr. Joseph N. Riley was a "crackpot"? FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.

You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.

Anyway, why do you suppose the HSCA FPP was so vague about the subcortical damage and made no effort to explain how it could have been caused by the same bullet that caused the cortical damage? The FPP described the cortical damage in detail, but gave only a brief, vague description of the subcortical damage, and made no effort to explain how the alleged Oswald headshot bullet could have caused the subcortical wound path. Why?

The Clark Panel described both the cortical and the subcortical damage but, like the HSCA FPP, made no effort to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage. In fact, the Clark Panel made the astoundingly erroneous claim that the high fragment trail was consistent with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail somehow also aligned with the cowlick entry site! Of course, we now know that the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and about 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP entry site.

Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail in the autopsy report and in the supplemental autopsy report? They described the subcortical damage in detail in the supplemental autopsy report, but uttered not a single word about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. They insisted that they saw a low fragment trail that started "slightly above" the EOP and extended to a point just above the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the existing skull x-rays.

Isn't it obvious that the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail and the cortical damage because they knew they could not be associated with the EOP entry site and therefore indicated that two bullets hit the skull? Isn't it obvious that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP failed to explain how the subcortical damage could be associated with the cowlick site because they recognized that the subcortical damage was too low to have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, since there is no connection whatsoever--no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing--between the subcortical damage and the cortical damage?

We should keep in mind that the autopsy evidence was not supposed to be seen by skeptical or independent experts for decades. Thus, the autopsy doctors believed they could get away with ignoring two obvious, problematic areas of damage in the skull. Similarly, the Clark Panel believed they could get away with claiming that the high fragment trail on the skull x-rays matches the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail aligns with the cowlick site.

But, then along came the HSCA FPP, who, for all their many errors and omissions, (1) at least identified the high fragment trail's actual location in relation to the EOP site, (2) acknowledged that the back wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC placed it, and (3) acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered at an upward angle and traveled upward from there. (If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit, never mind that no photo or footage shows JFK leaning that far forward during any of the proposed times for the SBT hit.)

Also, three of the HSCA FPP's expert consultants provided a number of crucial new findings: Dr. David O. Davis determined that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick site, and that the trail is well above the cowlick site (5 cm/1.9 inches above it, to be exact). Dr. Gerald McDonnel noted that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone, and he detected a previously unrecognized fragment on the back of the skull lodged between the outer table and the galea to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the cowlick site. And, Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized that the triangular skull fragment is frontal bone and that there is a gap between the frontal defect and the parietal-temporal defect.

Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.

[Jack Nessan]

Allow me to bump this thread by circling back to this confused, unseemly dodge.

Are you actually claiming that Dr. Joseph N. Riley was a "crackpot"? FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.

You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.

Anyway, why do you suppose the HSCA FPP was so vague about the subcortical damage and made no effort to explain how it could have been caused by the same bullet that caused the cortical damage? The FPP described the cortical damage in detail, but gave only a brief, vague description of the subcortical damage, and made no effort to explain how the alleged Oswald headshot bullet could have caused the subcortical wound path. Why?

The Clark Panel described both the cortical and the subcortical damage but, like the HSCA FPP, made no effort to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage. In fact, the Clark Panel made the astoundingly erroneous claim that the high fragment trail was consistent with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail somehow also aligned with the cowlick entry site! Of course, we now know that the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and about 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP entry site.

Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail in the autopsy report and in the supplemental autopsy report? They described the subcortical damage in detail in the supplemental autopsy report, but uttered not a single word about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. They insisted that they saw a low fragment trail that started "slightly above" the EOP and extended to a point just above the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the existing skull x-rays.

Isn't it obvious that the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail and the cortical damage because they knew they could not be associated with the EOP entry site and therefore indicated that two bullets hit the skull? Isn't it obvious that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP failed to explain how the subcortical damage could be associated with the cowlick site because they recognized that the subcortical damage was too low to have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, since there is no connection whatsoever--no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing--between the subcortical damage and the cortical damage?

We should keep in mind that the autopsy evidence was not supposed to be seen by skeptical or independent experts for decades. Thus, the autopsy doctors believed they could get away with ignoring two obvious, problematic areas of damage in the skull. Similarly, the Clark Panel believed they could get away with claiming that the high fragment trail on the skull x-rays matches the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail aligns with the cowlick site.

But, then along came the HSCA FPP, who, for all their many errors and omissions, (1) at least identified the high fragment trail's actual location in relation to the EOP site, (2) acknowledged that the back wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC placed it, and (3) acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered at an upward angle and traveled upward from there. (If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit, never mind that no photo or footage shows JFK leaning that far forward during any of the proposed times for the SBT hit.)

Also, three of the HSCA FPP's expert consultants provided a number of crucial new findings: Dr. David O. Davis determined that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick site, and that the trail is well above the cowlick site (5 cm/1.9 inches above it, to be exact). Dr. Gerald McDonnel noted that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone, and he detected a previously unrecognized fragment on the back of the skull lodged between the outer table and the galea to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the cowlick site. And, Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized that the triangular skull fragment is frontal bone and that there is a gap between the frontal defect and the parietal-temporal defect.

Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.

“You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.””

Who needs someone like Dr. Riley. A crackpot is someone who ignores the fact that the bullet was fired from the TSBD and there was just one entrance wound and one exit wound but talks about two shooters and two bullets anyway. Why is that so hard to understand? All the medical jargon and supposed expert opinion does not change this fact. Back to explain the two entrance and exit wounds. Do you really not understand why this is important and talking about all this brain damage when only one bullet caused the damage is silly.

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

“the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.”

This endless high pitched squeal seems to be the basis of your whole theory. A bullet was fragmenting as it went through his brain. Were you expecting no damage. There bullet fragments by his eye.

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

“If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit”

Brehm stated he was leaning forward when the first shot hit making Baden correct.

“When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded”

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

“Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.”

The private experts are not limited to just medical people. The Medical opinion in the JFK assassination is nothing more than a carnival game where you can spin the wheel and get any answer you want to support your opinion. You spin and spin and spin the opinion wheel until the most unbelievable answer comes up that somehow fits this theory you have created. Then you claim it is the truth. 

There is another opinion and another expert you seem to have ignored, who was allowed to view Archive evidence, was Dr E Forrest Chapman. He concluded there was only two shots fired by LHO. He concluded, by the indentation on the primer of CE543, that CE 543 was “dryfired”. Unless you can explain what Chapman and the WC’s Joseph Nicol both believed, which is confirmed by your own paper on the subject, I am not sure where you get this wild eyed theory of an additional headshot. Do you not believe what you yourself wrote?

I should not have to explain the significance of CE 543 as you have written and published a paper on The Dented Shell. You are a fan of Howard Donahue who also determined the same fact. You can post all the adverse medical information you want but the assassination viewed through a two shot lense doesn’t allow for all the differing explanations you offer.

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

In your essay dated December of 1997, you quoted both Howard Donahue and Chris Mills as proof there were only two shots from the SN.

In your Nov 2023 post you again claim there were only two shots from the SN.

Michael Griffith

Posted November 16, 2023 (edited)

 

The main point of the chapter is that the dented shell could not have fired a bullet on 11/22/63. 

The shallow back wound could have been caused by a short shot, a shot that was traveling at a greatly reduced speed. Since the throat shot was the first hit, JFK's back muscles would have been very tight from stress and tension--this would have helped to prevent the back-wound bullet from penetrating more than a short distance. (JFK starts the motion of reaching for his throat at around Z202 in response to the throat shot, long before he is obviously hit in the back and jolted forward at Z226-232.

Science tells us that bullets that are traveling as "slowly" as 165-200 fps can penetrate skin. A bullet traveling at 200 fps has a max effective range of about 75-100 feet. A bullet moving at 400 fps has a max effective range of about 150-200 feet. A bullet moving at 600 fps has a max effective range of about 200-300 feet. If the back wound was caused by a short shot, I would guess that its velocity was somewhere around 600 fps when it left the barrel. JFK's greatly tightened back muscles would have contributed to the bullet's shallow penetration.

As many researchers have noted, a number of witnesses commented that one of the shots sounded noticeably different from the others. This could have been a short shot.

One thing that is crystal clear from the ARRB releases is that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined via prolonged probing and body manipulation that the back wound had no exit point and that the bullet did not penetrate the pleural cavity. This, of course, is why one of the drafts of the autopsy report said that the throat wound was made by an exiting fragment from the head shot.

===========

Unbelievable, I keep telling you to stop listening to these internet clowns and think for yourself. Look at what you posted. This whole medical nonsense is so much crap. What you have stated here, is that of the three shells found on the 6th floor, only two were fired. A short shot is beyond the realm of even ridiculous bordering on complete stupidity. Exactly explain the physics of firing a round without sufficient powder to even create a known trajectory to accurately aim the rifle for the shot. The whole idea of having aimed the rifle in a normal fashion and firing off a round like what is stated in this post is completely goofy.  In reality, this fantasy twilight zone shot does not even enter the conversation because by your own admission there were only two shots fired from the SN, which means shot one is the SBT throat shot, and shot two is the headshot. Nowhere in this bizarre theory is there even an attempt to at an explanation of JBC’s wounds. Do you not understand your own assessment of the shots explains all of JFK’s wounds along with JBC”s without these make believe other shooters.

The shot sounded noticeably different because LHO had the rifle retracted into the room to avoid detection by the Secret Service. No idea where all the dust on BRW’s hair came from? Fire a gun in a room and see how unpleasant that really is if you want to know why the rifle was then stuck out of the window.