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

[Jack Nessan]

So rather than deal with the clear evidence in Zapruder film that JFK was hit before Z190, you once again use faulty logic and also misrepresent my position on the film.

There is a difference between a fake film and an altered film. I say the film has been altered, not that it is "fake." I say that even the altered version film was too problematic for the plotters, and that that's why the film was suppressed for so long.

But since you argue that the film is pristine, when are you going to explain the clear evidence in the film that JFK starts to react to a wound before Z207, and that Jackie clearly starts to notice his reaction before Z207? How does my position on the film as an altered film help your case, since you claim the film is the unaltered original? How? You're just ducking and dodging because you can't explain the evidence.

What a joke. Is this supposed to be your answer to all the facts I cited about Riley's graphic and HSCA exhibit F-32, the size of the rear hear entry wound in the autopsy report, Dr. Hodges' observation that the x-rays show a "goodly portion" of the right brain missing (which obviously exposes the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent), etc., etc.?

LOL! Holy cow! Did you miss the point that Sturdivan himself has said that there is no way the back-of-head fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be a bullet fragment from an FMJ missile?! Did you forget about this fact? Did it slip your mind? I covered this fact in detail a few replies ago. Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in a 3/9/1998 e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation to Wexler is worth quoting:

---------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------

Next, I quoted from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

---------------------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------------------

Does this refresh your memory?

Now, just FYI, leaving copper traces is not the same thing as leaving metallic fragments. Those are two very different events, especially when we're talking about two different penetrated objects (clothing vs. skull bone). Moreover, the traces on the clothing weren't even visible but were only detected through spectrographic testing. That is a far cry from the visible bullet fragments on the back of the skull seen in the autopsy skull x-rays.

And, you know, if it never occurred to you that bullets behave differently when they penetrate fabric than when they penetrate skull bone, you really have no business talking about the JFK case in a public forum. Did this never occur to you?

Finally, as for Sturdivan's answer to the question about the x-rays and soft-nosed/frangible ammo, obviously you are unaware that Sturdivan did not examine the unenhanced skull x-rays, which do show the very right-front cloud of fragments that he said would be present if a soft-nosed/frangible bullet had struck the head in that area. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz commented on Dr. Sturdivan's answer:

---------------------------------------------------
Sturdivan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. . . .

Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.

Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head.

One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."

The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound.

The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)
---------------------------------------------------

You might read my chapter on the head from the front in my new book A Comforting Lie.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I have read enough conspiracy books to know how one dimensional they really are. 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.

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.

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.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here we go again. U will not find one gelatine test or soap test etc in the history of the universe that shows that a fragmenting bullet leaves a cloud of fragments anywhere near the bullet's entry into the gelative or soap etc. The fragments are all always much deeper. Even if hitting something very hard just before entry. Wait. U said exploding bullet (i mean Sturdivan said). Ok, exploding is different. I will have to have another look.

So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.

You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.

Oh, I get it, the conspirators only altered the sequences that don't affect your wacky conspiracy theories, how frigging convenient!

This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.

Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?

Anyway, I don't want to offend you and call you an amateur because that would be an insult to an amateur, it's obvious that you have never done any basic editing much less the extensive fakery that you suggest happened to the Zapruder film. Because even 1 removed frame interrupts the flow of the film and is immediately obvious.

The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?

FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA

Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):

https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up

And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.

For example you have said that they simply edited out numerous Zapruder frames* so that Clint and Jackie appeared to be close in the Nix film, and that they both appeared far away in the Zapruder Film but,
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Hill between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the synchronized movement of Jackie between the two films, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous movement of the backgrounds, you didn't.
how did you account for the continuous and synchronized movement of the crowd, you didn't.

This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.

Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.

We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.

Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.

What you are inadvertently implying and clearly don't understand is that the fakery involved required separating individual elements, travelling mattes and excessively complicated compositing, each of which involved resizing, matching motion blur and integration at the granular level.

Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.

You are so far out of your depth but what the heck, how about you just say they altered the film and you can leave it at that.

You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.

Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.

Clueless Alterationist's make me SICK! JohnM

What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.

[John Mytton]

So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.

You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.

This is silly junior-high strawman polemic. No, the problem was that the plotters could not alter or remove every problematic sequence in the Zapruder film. There was only so much editing they could do without making the alteration obvious at first glance and without making the film wholly incompatible with other films and with eyewitness accounts of the shooting. They edited as much as they dared but found the final product unacceptable, because even the altered version destroys the lone-gunman theory.

Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh? Why do you suppose the Justice Department fought tooth and nail to try to keep Jim Garrison from obtaining the Zapruder film to show it at the Clay Shaw grand jury hearing? Huh? Why? What gives?

The problem here is that you are simply ignorant of the research that has been done on Zapruder film alteration. What little reading you've done has obviously been one-sided. Do you know who Dr. Roderick Ryan was? Do you know Dr. John Costella is? Do you know who Daryll Weatherly is? To name just a few of the experts who have detected signs of alteration in the film. Have you read any of their research?

FYI, Dr. Ryan held a doctorate from USC in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He received the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's research on the alteration of the Zapruder film is discussed in Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason. Dr. Ryan served as one of Twyman's expert consultants for the book's section on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

FYI, Dr. Costella is a physicist who only began to examine the Zapruder film to test some software to remove blurring from films. He began his research with the assumption that the film was the pristine original, i.e., that it had not been altered. In fact, the people who were helping him likewise rejected the idea that the film had been altered. But, he found hard scientific evidence that the film has been altered. Here is one of his YouTube videos on his Zapruder film research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWmGDBgmGA

Daryll Weatherly is a mathematician, a member of the American Mathematical Society, and a former professor of mathematics at the State University of New York. Have you read his vector-analysis research on the streaking and camera-motion anomalies in the Zapruder film? Any clue? You can read some of that research online in the first appendix in Harrison Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century. The appendix is titled "A New Look at the 'Film of the Century'" (pp. 371-381):

https://archive.org/details/killingkennedyho0000livi_i4r3/mode/1up

And, oh, FYI, actually, I have done some video editing, including altering certain images within certain frames.

This is pure Emperor's New Clothes hokum. This is like the comical drivel that Flat Earthers offer in response to satellite photos of the round Earth. You guys simply refuse to acknowledge indisputable, self-evident photographic proof that destroys your position.

Nobody but brainwashed WC apologists will deny that the Nix film obviously shows Jackie and Agent Hill much closer to each other than the Zapruder film shows them before Jackie starts to retreat back into the limo, and that Jackie's right arm is clearly closer to the trunk in the Nix film than it is in the Zapruder film.

We can all see these things. I know you can see them. But you're so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman fantasy that you refuse to admit you can see them.

Your denial of obvious reality here is as bad as your denial of the self-evident fact that JFK's reaction in Z225 is the continuation of the movement that he initiated in Z200, and that his Z225 reaction proves that he must have been hit many frames earlier and could not be in response to a Z224 hit.

Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't use big words that you don't really understand. If you would break down and bother to read the research of scientists and scholars who have documented evidence of alteration in the film, you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this. You might start with the material that those scientists and scholars have written in response to the arguments against alteration.

You are out of your depth just in trying to put together a correct sentence in English, much less arguments on the Zapruder film. Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist, not to mention your ducking and dodging on the impossibly fast movements of Brehm Jr. and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious difference between Jackie's location and position in the Nix film and her location and position in the Zapruder film.

Again, all you have to do is do a reenactment with a young boy, or even an adult, and prove that anyone could perform Brehm Jr.'s movements in the required time, and be sure to take a video of it and post the video. This should be a quick, easy, inexpensive reenactment to perform. You can even have your stand-in already moving when you start to time his/her movements from behind whatever object you choose to simulate the father. You guys have been challenged for years to do this, yet you have not posted a video of a reenactment that shows Brehm Jr.'s movements are humanly possible. Either you haven't bothered to do the reenactment or you did one or more but could not duplicate the movements in the required time.

What a chuckle. Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school-level English errors. First off, the term "alterationist" refers to someone who does clothing alterations. Second, in English, to make "alterationist" plural, you just add an "s," not an apostrophe and an "s." Adding an apostrophe and an "s" makes the word possessive, not plural.

Hilarious, now we know you don't have a clue when you ignore my valid criticisms and are are brainlessly reduced to attacking my occasional lack of an apostrophe or a comma, how pathetic, how about you take some time and instead of this weak diversion, you actually learn the subject that you clearly don't understand and tell us how your massive fakery was accomplished. It's way too easy to make an empty claim but to reinforce your words with actual proof of concept, well, that takes an effort that so far, is way beyond your pay grade.

Again, if you're going to try to posture as the smarter person, you really should avoid committing grade-school English errors.

Talk about delusions of grandeur, it's a well known fact that Einstein committed a lot of grade-school English errors, which btw had zero to do with his "Theory of Relativity", are you claiming that you are smarter than Einstein?

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

As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.

For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?



As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.

Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist,

WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.

Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh?

OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.





The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.







Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!

JohnM

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

So a frangible bullet, i.e., a bullet designed to explode on impact on the skull, is not going to leave fragments at and just beneath the point of impact?? Really?? Can you cite any forensic literature to back up your claim? So you're saying that Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert, was wrong on this point? I think I'll take Sturdivan's word here instead of yours.

You see, when Sturdivan observed that the skull x-rays show no sign of the right-frontal impact of a frangible bullet, he thought he was on safe ground because he was only shown the enhanced x-rays. The enhanced x-rays obscure the right-frontal fragment cloud. Thus, when he saw no cloud of fragments at the alleged point of impact on the enhanced skull x-rays, he said this was evidence that no frangible bullet had struck there. He was not aware that the original/unenhanced x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal area.

Donahue (MORTAL ERROR) says that fragments are not found near entry. Sturdivan says they are found near entry. Gelatine tells us that Donahue is correct.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

[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.