Maybe you have become too desperate to prove this point that you are no longer rationally assessing the evidence and the experts’ opinions. You are reading things into their words that are not there.
Let me help you stay on track; your point is not proven by what he said. You said it was a bullet fragment Sturdivan said it was not.
Baden and Sturdivan both think it has not one thing to do with the bullet yet here you are claiming it does. Exactly what is your point? That you know more than they do. You are arguing it is a piece of a bullet and they are telling you that would be impossible because of its shape and that somehow proves your point.
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.
A conspiracy believer talking about a frangible bullet, how unique. To actually be a card carrying certified CT don’t you have to have at least one exploding bullet in the story?
The bullet is fragmenting in the brain and as it strikes the inside of the right side of his head upon exiting, it completely fragments leaving fragments. Is your point is the exit wound is an entrance wound? This whole explanation from you circles back to two shooters with carcanos. A point you do not seem to want to address. Where is the evidence of a second bullet.
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?
You seem unable to address the window and chrome strip damage as being an indicator of the direction of the bullets travel. That alone pretty much ends this conspiracy mental meltdown. All discussion as to where the shot came from has to center around the TSBD. A shot from the front is not even in the realm of possibilities.
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.
I have read enough conspiracy books to know how one dimensional they really are.
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.
A piece of evidence is contorted to be the basis for a massive coverup. This is no different. Everything is explained if their statements are not distorted and perverted in an attempt to extract a different line of reasoning.
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.
Maybe you need to write an addendum to your book explaining how the shot could only have come from the rear because the bullet fragments went forward of JFK. It is just simple physics. Make sure you explain how a bullet that is yawing in flight could alter the trajectory once it hits the skull and brain and follow a new trajectory based on the direction the nose of the bullet is pointing in flight. That will help with your difficulties understanding the entrance and exit wounds. If you would actually read Sturdivan’s testimony instead of scouring it trying to prove strange beliefs, he explains all of this in simple to understand English.
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.
So you agree a bullet can leave a fragment or traces upon entering the skull. If it can leave a little on something pliable like fabric, it can leave a lot on a bone. Baden and Sturdivan agree with you, but that it is not part of a bullet. The question is not can there be a fragment, the question is the description of the fragment being a 6.5mm round shape.
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.
