Larry SPersonivan describes this in his book ?The JFK Myths?, Chapter Two, pages 28-29:
In each case, the bullets deformed extensively on impact with the skulls. As the bullets penetrated the contents, the jackets were torn open, exposing the lead cores. Some were torn completely in two. All left numerous small fragments along the bullet?s path through the gelatin inside the skull. High-speed movies were made of the shots that show the skulls to shatter in a manner very similar to the damage observed in the president?s skull. More fragments of skull were separated from the experiment skulls than from the President?s, as the tough scalp and connective tissue were missing.
JFK's head did not just shatter, it exploded. You can see the fireball in his head during the right temple blow-out. It created a plume of head material that SPersonivan does not describe. Otherwise, let's see the footage and we all can judge. I doubt he replicated JFK's exploding head. Did he replicate the same damage as Z323?
Didn't think so.
Page 163 shows a series of high speed photograms showing a human skull shattering from the impact of a bullet fired from Oswald?s rifle. It shows the skull exploding even though the bullet was a non-explosive bullet.
Not saying I don't believe it, but show us the photos. I believe that a FMJ bullet can cause a blow-out along its trajectory, but not the way JFK's head exploded. No way.
On a side note, I have seen video made by Dr. Lattimer of a human skull, stuffed with animal brains, sitting on a ladder, which explodes after being hit with a WCC/MC bullet.
Bully for you. Show us how it equates to the head shot.
Question:
Are your conclusions that a WCC/MC could not cause the head to explode based on your readings by a ballistic expert? Are they based on your arm chair analysis, not on any real-world experiments but on how you image the effects of a non-explosive bullet would have?
Like you, I base my conclusions on the opinions of experts. But for me, it's the lack of a replication of the head shot explosion that makes me dubious. A head shot blow-out always follows the trajectory of the bullet. So what gives with the right temple blow out?
If based on real world experiments, provide a quote of this expert.
You can't prove a negative. If I can't duplicate the head shot, then that doesn't mean that it was impossible. It is up to you to show that it was possible. By default it is ambiguous at best.
If based on your armchair analysis state that it is based on your armchair analysis.
Huh?
Silence on this question will be interpreted as your opinion is based on your armchair analysis.
What was the question?
If the Zapruder film was faked, it could be faked again. All you have to do is remove the evidence of a massive wound to the side of the head and add a massive wound to the back of the head.
Question:
Can you, a self-described expert, do this?
Sure. Anyone can with today's digital editing tools.
Can you show a link to a website where this has been done?
Probably, if I bothered to.
If the Zapruder film was faked on 1963 to remove the massive rear head wound and replace it with a massive side head wound, then it should be possible to modify the fake Zapruder film.
If the Zapruder film could have been faked, this claim would have been substantiated by now.
Of course the Z film could have been faked. Why would it have been substantiated by now?
The autopsy photographs passed a stereoscopic analysis, where two photographs of the head, taken from slightly different positions are viewed through a stereoscope.
I use stereoscopy for my work all the time to ortho-rectify aerial photographs. What you see with a stereoscope is called an anaglyph. Post the anaglyph of the autopsy photos and I'll analyze it for you. But what does that tell you? The fakery wasn't conducted in the dark room, the autopsy photos are of a JFK surrogate who didn't have a blow-out in the back of his head. Tippit perhaps? Whatever happened to his body anyway?
Question:
Can you do the same thing?
Can you modify the ?altered? autopsy photographs to show a large rear wound and have these photographs pass a stereoscopic analysis?
Has this already been done? [/b]
Sure, easy peasy. If you start with 2 stereo pairs then anything you do to them will pass a stereoscopic analysis if you are the least bit competent in the darkroom. I'm confident that the FBI could find a film editor that could have done anything they wanted.