JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Tim Nickerson]

Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none.

Oh really? Let's see the statements of those doctors in which they swear up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever.

[Bill Chapman]

That information is in the articles I've linked for you, which obviously you still have not read. This is getting silly. Why are you so afraid to read the other side?

Then why do you keep avoiding Dr. Mantik's observations and points that establish that the fragment is occipital bone?  Three times now I have asked you to address his points and observations, which deal with Angel's and Riley's arguments, but you just keep snipping the long quote and ignoring them.

So Dr. Mantik "isn't even a radiologist"? No, he's a radiation oncologist who also happens to be a physicist. A radiation oncologist receives extensive training in radiology because he has to expertly read x-rays. Let me know when anyone catches Dr. Mantik outright faking test data and misrepresenting others' test data, as Lattimer was caught doing. Go look at Lattimer's SBT model, for starters.

LOL! Have you only been studying the JFK case for a few years? Nearly all the names on your list were experts who only had brief contact with the JFK case because they were asked by a government body to provide input on certain items of evidence, and who have never written anything about the case on their own.

FYI, Dr. Robertson argues that JFK was shot from two directions, and that there were two gunmen. I'm guessing you were not aware of this.

Furthermore, some of the experts on your list gave evidence that was ignored or dismissed because it destroyed the lone-gunman theory. Dr. Canning did not accept the HSCA FPP's placement of the back wound, so he ignored it, and he also reported that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by bullet fragments from the head shot--and for these sins, Canning was treated very badly by members of the FPP.

Similarly, Dr. Angel provided very unwelcomed analysis of the autopsy skull x-rays--he put the Harper fragment in the rear part of the parietal bone, rejected the FPP's claim that the three skull fragments joined and revealed an exit hole, and noted that the x-rays showed that considerable frontal bone was missing. The HSCA FPP, like the WC, dared not admit that frontal bone was missing because no such damage is seen in the autopsy photos that show the face, so they simply ignored Angel's finding.

The FPP was not happy with Dr. McDonnel either, and the feeling became mutual. Dr. McDonnel provided the stunning but every unwanted discovery of another bullet fragment on the back of the head, on the outer table of the skull near the 6.5 mm "fragment"--a fragment that everyone knew could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. McDonnel also confirmed that the skull x-rays showed frontal bone missing. Released internal HSCSA memos and interviews reveal that the HSCA FPP tried to get McDonnel to "change his mind," and in return he became suspicious of the FPP's motives and suspected they would misquote him, if they quoted him at all. The FPP ended up simply ignoring McDonnel's discovery of the extra rear-head fragment and dismissed his observation that the skull x-rays showed missing frontal bone.

Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science)
-- Dr. John Nichols (professor of pathology, University of Kansas)
-- Dr. Milton Helpern (forensic pathologist and a former chief medical examiner for NYC)
-- Dr. Art Snyder (a physicist at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. Michael Chesser (specialist in neurology and neurophysiology)
-- Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist and physicist, with post doctoral work in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar (professor of clinical surgery at Stanford University and the University of California)
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw (professor of clinical surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroscientist)
-- Doug Horne (Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB)
-- Daryll Weatherly (mathematician, State University of New York)
-- Dr. Roderick Ryan (film and photography scientist, formerly with Kodak)
-- Dr. G. Paul Chambers (physicist, formerly a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in DC)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD and conducted wound ballistics experiments that disproved the jet-effect theory for JFK's head snap)
-- Dr. Donald Thomas (entomologist, a senior scientist with the United States federal government, and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Texas)
-- Hershel Womack (professor emeritus of photography, Texas Tech University)
-- Dr. John Newman (former military intelligence officer, served as executive assistant to the director of NSA, and now teaches political science, international terrorism, and counterterrorism at James Madison University--his JFK work has been in the area of Oswald's intelligence connections)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)
-- Dr. Cliff Spiegelman (distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, author of over 100 scientific publications, and the author of the award-winning paper recognized by the American Statistical Association: “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”)

HUH??? You have no clue what you're talking about. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the head. The 6.5 mm "fragment" is in the back of the head, near the cowlick. You understand that these fragments also appear on the lateral skull x-ray, right? Right? So there is no way Humes et al "mistook" a fragment at the front of the head for a fragment at the back of it. Here are two articles that will bring you up to speed on the basics about this issue:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm

You are lost in space on this issue. The 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm are two separate fragments at opposite ends of the skull on the skull x-rays. Here is one of Dr. Mantik's articles on the 6.5 mm fragment and on his finding via optical density measurements that it is a fake image--he also found that it is not even a continuous image:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf

Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about here. Let's back up and deal with the issue at hand: Humes said nothing about the 6.5 mm "fragment" in the autopsy report, even though it would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the x-rays. Nor did any of the autopsy doctors mention the fragment in their notes. Humes had at least one lateral-view skull x-ray, so he would have had no problem seeing the fragment and distinguishing it from the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes did not mention the 6.5 mm fragment in his WC testimony--he was clearly, undeniably referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

You know we have testimony from one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy that he was ordered to take skull x-rays with a bullet fragment taped onto a skull, right? Did he just dream this? How would he have been "mistaken" about this? And his testimony is all the more  compelling because he was a very reluctant witness. This information came out thanks to the ARRB.

No, sorry, but several scientists, including Dr. Mantik, have verified through optical density measurements that the 6.5 mm fragment is not a real fragment but is an image that was placed onto the x-ray.

SPersonivan's point is that he doesn't know how the "fragment" got on the x-ray but that there is no way it could be a fragment from the kind of ammunition that Oswald used, and that therefore it must be an artifact. Ballistics expert Howard Donahue made the same point--that there is no way on this planet that that fragment "sheared off" from an FMJ missile and therefore it could not have come from Oswald's alleged ammo.
 

Phew, that's a rather forced, specious definition of "above the right eye."

Uh, sorry, but the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP swore up and down that there was no frontal bone missing whatsoever--none. But now you're trying to weasel-word your way out of the problem by saying "no significant amount," but earlier you said none was missing. Two of your own experts (Angel and McDonnel), independently of each other, observed that frontal bone was missing, and not just a little bit. Dr. McDonnel got so fed up with the FPP over this issue that he came to question their motives. He didn't understand that the FPP could not afford to admit missing frontal bone because it would discredit some of the autopsy photos.

No, "many" did not recant. How about all the witnesses who provided wound diagrams to the HSCA and the ARRB? They certainly did not "admit they had been mistaken."

Dr. Aguilar has written a good article on the witnesses who saw the large right-rear head wound:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

LOL! Only a handful of witnesses said there was no large wound in the back of the head, and three of them were the discredited autopsy doctors!

What a jumble of nonsense. Accurate optical density measurements most certainly can be made with the autopsy x-rays, especially given the fact that we can compare the measurements with those made on x-rays of JFK's head taken a few years before he was shot. You'd know this if you could just muster up the courage to read the optical density research. And Dr. Mantik, who is in fact highly qualified in radiology, is not the only one who has done these measurements. Dr. Michael Chesser, a specialist in neurology and neurophysiology, has also done optical density measurements on the skull x-rays and has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings.

You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"

The problem is that you just won't allow yourself to consider the obvious conclusion that the autopsy report is a bunch of hokum that was produced to try to support the lone-gunman theory. That's why Humes burned his autopsy notes and burned the first draft of the autopsy report, an unprecedented action for a pathologist to take in a criminal gunshot case.

Yeah, you bet. Clint Hill was on the trunk of the limousine and saw the fresh head wound from just 2-3 feet away, and he saw the same wound when he was sent to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the location of JFK's wounds. Nurse Bowron packed the large head wound with gauze while preparing the body for transport--she saw the same large right-rear head wound that Hill saw. Fast forward a few hours to Bethesda: Tom Robinson, the mortician, had to prepare the skull and the rest of the body for burial, and he saw a large wound in the back of the head (he also saw a small entry-like wound in the right temple--he filled it with wax).

I notice you ignored his FBI statement, which simply said "south" of the limo.

Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment. They were surveying to identify the location of the limo for each of the shots. If you look at where those surveys placed the limousine at the time of the head shot, the limousine was well forward of either of the locations that Harper identified. Chuck Marler wrote a very detailed, helpful chapter on the surveys in Assassination Science (pp. 249-262). The book is available for free PDF download:

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf[/size]
Yeah, sure... a book edited and containing articles by one James H Fetzer, he of Sandy Hook denial fame

The man is white trash:

Wkipedia: 'In the early 1990s, Fetzer began to promote John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, later 9/11 conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories regarding the 2002 death of Senator Paul Wellstone and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories since the multiple fatalities in 2012 He cofounded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005,[7] and claims that the United States government, Israeli government and Israeli Mossad are involved in these and other conspiracies. Fetzer's allegations and speculations have drawn strong criticism.[7][8][9][10][11] In October 2019, a Wisconsin court ordered Fetzer to pay the father of a Sandy Hook victim $450,000 in a defamation case.[12][13][14][15]'

[Tim Nickerson]

You just won't allow yourself to connect the dots, will you? Let's review again: Boswell's own notes taken at the autopsy mention missing frontal bone. Later, Boswell told the ARRB, under oath, that there was frontal bone missing. Finck told General Bloomberg the same thing. And your only reply is that, "Gosh, well, gee, Boswell and Finck signed the autopsy report!"

You have completely ignored what I posted this morning on this. Here it is again:

From that article:

"Autopsy ballistics consultant, Pierre Finck reported to his superior, General Bloomberg, that frontal bone was missing."[50]

I read through Finck's report to the General and cannot find where he wrote that frontal bone was missing. The large wound extended up to where the bullet exited but, as I pointed out already, that didn't include any significant portion of the frontal bone.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image00.htm
===================================

Again from Hunt's article:

====================================================================================
"Autopsy prosector, J.T. Boswell recalled the missing frontal bone for the ARRB and drew the hole on a plastic skull (see Figure H-12b, below)."
====================================================================================

I just finished reading Boswell's ARRB deposition in its entirety. The above claim made by Hunt is FALSE.  No where in his deposition did Humes recall that the frontal region of the skull was missing bone. He said that there was some fracture that extended from the frontal bone through the floor of the orbit. But nothing about any missing frontal bone. The only time that he came close to saying that there was frontal bone missing was when he was asked his opinion on what the dark space seen in the lateral X-Ray view represented.

GUNN. To an untrained eye such as my own, there appears to be a large, dark space, almost as if it's a figure eight, in the frontal area, somewhat behind the eye and down into the cheek. Do you see that area that I'm referring to?

BOSWELL. Mm-hmm.

GUNN. Can you tell me what that represents?

BOSWELL. Well, it looks almost like a pneumo- encephalogram where you got air in and displaced tissue, but--I suspect that that's what that is. I think that's a space with a lot of air in it.

GUNN. So though it is darker, that does not signify that it is missing skull?

BOSWELL. Oh, I don't think--well, the missing skull is all over. Of course, the drawing we have there is sort of similar to that, isn't it?

Do we have an AP, one straight on?

GUNN. Yes.

BOSWELL. What was the one I just--

GUNN. The first one.

BOSWELL. The first one? May I look at that one again? Yes, you're right. Here it is. See, this is what's missing here.

GUNN. So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere? Is that--

BOSWELL. I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here.

He's trying to make out what the X-Rays are showing and comes close to saying that the AP view shows frontal bone missing.  Even if he said outright that it shows frontal bone missing, it would be a far cry from him saying that he recalled missing frontal bone. Hunt was being somewhat less than honest.

....................................................

If you continue to give my posts short shrift then I won't be wasting any more of my time with you.

[Tim Nickerson]

Huh? Why in the world would they have consulted Harper for the reenactment surveys? They didn't care about where Harper found the fragment.

 

That has to be the stupidest thing that I've seen in weeks. And I see a lot of stupid comments from CTs on various discussion groups. Do you ever even stop to think about what it is that you are talking about?

For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.

I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.[/size]

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 04:24:34 AM
The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?

[Joe Elliott]

When talking about where the Harper fragment ended up, don’t forget Zapruder frames 313 and 314.





The Harper fragment is seen flying up and forward. It looks like a streak of dots. As the fragments rotated, it would sometime be seen edge on, hence a series of dots. How do we know that this object is the Harper fragment? Well, if it isn’t, there were two fragments. A visible fragment and an invisible fragment. And the visible fragment was never found while the invisible fragment was found and became known as the Harper fragment. This is very unlikely. Why would the Harper fragment be invisible in frames 313 and 314? It is big enough to be seen.

It's funny that CTers believe the invisible piece of bone that Jackie allegedly went out on the trunk to retrieve was real, while questioning the visible flying fragment in frames 313 and 314. I think the ‘Jackie fragment’ and the ‘Harper fragment’ so how little CTers are influenced by evidence, and how strongly influenced by belief. They believe the fragment that can’t be seen but don’t believe in the fragment that can be seen and has been recovered.

[John Iacoletti]

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

[John Mytton]

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336081190946058915/

Hill later told the Warren Commission that he thought Mrs. Kennedy was reaching for a piece of the president's skull that had been blown off. He crawled to her and guided her back into her seat. Once back in the car, Hill placed his body above the president and Mrs. Kennedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Hill_(Secret_Service)#:~:text=Kennedy%20was%20reaching%20for%20a,Kennedy.

Jackie Kennedy leaped onto the back of the presidential limousine in a desperate bid to save her husband by attempting to retrieve a piece of his skull.
https://www.newser.com/story/143414/chilling-memoir-jackie-tried-to-save-piece-of-jfks-skull.html

"[The Nix Film] shows very clearly that [Jackie Kennedy] is reaching for a piece of skull on the back portion of the automobile."
Rob Caprio
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-92.html

onto the limousine trunk to retrieve a portion of her husband's skull.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/opinion/l-testimony-and-film-leave-mrs-kennedy-s-actions-a-mystery-509388.html


https://www.quora.com/What-was-Jackie-Kennedy-reaching-for-when-President-Kennedy-was-shot

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Now, here is a partial list of experts who reject the lone-gunman theory and who either were active on the JFK case for many years or who are still active on the JFK case:

-- Dr. John Costella (physicist with degrees in electrical engineering and the sciences from the University of Melbourne, in addition to his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Melbourne, with three years of postdoctoral research and lecturing at the University of Melbourne on mathematics and physics)

John Costello says that the whole Zapruder film is fake but as I will show, he keeps writing checks that he can't afford and he only brings shame to your list and I bet many others on your list who take on subjects they don't understand will just as easily be exposed.

1. Costello claims that the crowd on Zapruder's side of the road show no reaction and @16:00 makes a joke comment that they should be told to the President's driven past so they can show a reaction? Does Costello expect the mature adult crowd to start doing jumping jacks or something equally ludicrous?

Not only do some people move as the Limo goes past, two of the women number 2 and number 6 can be seen raising their hands to clap and the others you can't see their hands.



Here's the starting pre Z133 frames and you can see people straining and peering around each other to see what's coming.



2. Costello claims that the posts of the Stemmons freeway sign flip/flop as compared to the background but he doesn't take into account the slight separation of the panning and the simple distortion of either side of a camera lens.
But if he tested any other footage he would see that it's not only possible but repeatable on the camera in my GIF.
It may take a few cycles of viewing the following GIF to fully comprehend, but this GIF shows the same effect as Costello claims in Zapruder is fakery!

Costello's claim


JohnM's rebuttal showing the slight panning and the lamp post at either end of a camera lens


This web site goes into more detail about why Costello is wrong.

"John Costello can't tell us why the sign and the lamppost are the way they are in the Zapruder film. He shows us the results of his sophisticated digital processing, he shows us his extensive panoramas, but he can't tell us how the apparently different signs in the Barnes photo and Zapruder frames came to be. Following Jim Fetzer's lead, he offers us only doubt, mistrust, and some vague hints of a massive conspiracy lurking in the shadows."
https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/costella.html

JohnM