Any chance you will ever spell what you believe took place on the head shot? It is extremely hard to grasp the idea here when you are all over the board about what took place. Two shooters then not two shooters, Frangible bullets then not frangible bullets, a shot from behind and the front and then not a shot from the front, two entrance wounds and then not two entrance wounds.
The problem is that you either lack the mental capacity to understand plain English or you are dishonestly and embarrassingly ignoring my plain English because you have no credible answer for my arguments.
When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?
I guess your two shooters model is dead in the water now? It appears reality seems to be creeping into your theory. It appears you have decided that the WC assessment of the head shot near the EOP is better than the HSCA’s cowlick sight. If you no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets is part of your theory, this is progress. Welcome to the reality that Oswald did it alone.
Translation: You can't explain the compelling evidence against the cowlick site and for the EOP site. You prefer not to address the point that your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has repudiated the cowlick site, nor do you prefer to deal with his reasons for doing so.
You can't be so mentally challenged as to actually believe that I "no longer believe a second shooter and the use of frangible bullets [
sic]." Do you just hope that no one will read my replies and will not see that you either must be borderline retarded or are lying through your teeth to be making such a claim?
Again, when have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?
And when have I even implied that frangible ammo was not involved? I've repeatedly discussed the evidence that the frontal headshot bullet was a frangible bullet. See, for example, my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which I have cited many times in this forum:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view MTG __”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:”
The NAA was never debunked by anyone let alone DiEuginio. Maybe you should actually read the Tobin report. The Tobin report is actually a waste of time and proved nothing. Why are all of your ideas nothing but an outgrowth of someone else’s opinion? Maybe that is why you are unable to sort this issue out, you do not think for yourself.
If you actually believe this, then you can't read, assuming you actually read "the Tobin report"--i.e., the Spiegelman-Tobin-James study. Their study proved that the bullet fragments could have come from three or more and as many as five separate bullets, and they found several serious errors in Guinn's assumptions. How did you miss this central finding? Veteran journalist John Solomon, whose article on the study I cited and linked in my previous reply to you, did not miss it:
----------------------------------------
They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
----------------------------------------
Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.
You answered your own questions about the chrome and window damage and what happened to the fragments. Some remained in the car, some did not but they obviously went forward because the lone shot was from behind. Maybe you should explain what you think should have happened with the fragments. You do understand they are just fragments splintered off a bullet? Your shot from the front looks to be impossible with the fragments hitting in front of JFK. I suppose that would explain your reluctance to fully explain your theory.
Translation: You're going to keep ducking the question of how the fragment that dented the back of the rearview mirror could have been either of the fragments that were found in the front of the limo. You're going to keep ducking the problem posed by the chrome dent. Again, why do you suppose that Rowley lied about the chrome dent and claimed it was made before the assassination during "routine maintenance"? Why? Why do you suppose the WC pretended there was doubt about when the chrome dent occurred? Why would they have lied about this if it posed no problem?
You see, I'm still trying to get
you to explain
your theory about the chrome damage, the window damage, and the rearview mirror damage. So far, your "theory" is nothing but your blind acceptance of what the WC claimed about the damage and the fragments, with no attempt on your part to explain the problems with the WC's scenario for the damage and the fragments.
The WC did not even mention the damage to the back of the rearview mirror, much less try to explain it. Why do you suppose that was?
MTG--”Are you saying that DiEugenio misrepresents the findings of the Randich and Grant NAA study published in the Journal of Forensic Science? If so, how?"
I have read a few of his ramblings. I will not waste 1 more second of my time reading about something DiEugenio thinks. If it so important for you to repeat what he vomits out of his mouth feel free to quote him. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to verbalize that nonsense.
Translation: You're still refusing to prove your claim that DiEugenio in any way misrepresents the Randich-Grant NAA study.
Do you realize that after the Randich-Grant study was published in the
Journal of Forensic Sciences, even G. Robert Blakey, who had ardently defended and cited Guinn's NAA research for the HSCA, concluded that the Guinn's NAA research was "junk science"?
Have you read the Randich-Grant study, "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives"? Are you aware that it proves that, contrary to what Guinn claimed, WCC MC lead does
not "differ sharply" from typical bullet leads. Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn supported his bogus claim by comparing WCC MC lead to the lead from
unjacketed handgun rounds? Are you aware that Randich and Grant found that Guinn's sampling number was far too small to justify his sweeping assertion about the fragments and WCC MC ammo?
Allow me to quote from the
Journal of Forensic Sciences abstract of the Randich-Grant study:
----------------------------------------
Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. (
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x)
----------------------------------------
Yes, the Guinn NAA most certainly has been debunked.
MTG--”Will you ever deal with the fact that the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing but that the autopsy brain photos show the entire brain missing virtually no tissue? We know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, including the follow-up car's windshield and the windshields of the two left-side trailing patrolmen. How can the brain photos be authentic when they show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, given that much of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays (as even Dr. Fred Hodges noted)?”
Once again you are going on about how much of the brain is missing. Why is that such a focal point? Everyone knows what happened to it. Do you actually think they substituted another brain to confuse you and then for what reason? Frame Z313 says it all does it not?
Vincent Bugliosi is spinning in his grave! Ignoring the skull x-rays, Bugliosi gleefully pointed out that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue, and he cited this fact as his basis for rejecting all the accounts of the eyewitnesses who reported that a large portion of JFK's brain was missing.
However, as I've noted previously, a number of medical experts, from Dr. Hodges to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Chesser, have observed that the autopsy skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing. Dr. Mantik has confirmed this with OD measurements.
Let me try to put this in grade-school terms: Suppose you had a set of photos and a set of x-rays that supposedly showed the same injured hand. Suppose that the photos showed two broken fingers but showed the fingers otherwise intact except for a small cut with a small amount of skin missing. But, suppose that the x-rays showed an entire finger missing. Would anyone in their right mind accept the claim that the photos and the x-rays showed the same hand?
MTG--”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.”
You really need to have a picture drawing of why there is a different trajectory for the window and chrome damage than the trajectory for the shot that hit JFK? They are at least 10 feet apart.
Why did he state it? The fragments possibly could have followed the same trajectory, but they didn’t, and he is just stating that fact. Their dispersion was random not necessarily linear. Actually, why do you need this explained for you to understand. There is 10 to 15 feet difference in impact points. It can only be two different trajectories.
HUH? I guess you forgot, or were hoping that I would forget, that Canning admitted that the windshield damage did not align with the headshot trajectory. He admitted this after being specifically asked about it, remember? He didn't use your silly argument that we should not expect fragment damage and the headshot trajectory to align.
Shall we apply your silly argument to the conflicting theories of Moore, Posner, and Holland regarding the fragment that hit the Tague curb?
Good luck with the mysterious two bullet fragments that aren’t really bullet fragments but were supposedly deposited by a ricochet from a shot that never happened. The experts obviously had a hard time explaining it in the context that the fragments came from a bullet when in reality they did not. Sorry but the hard cold reality of it is they hold no significance.
You are ducking and dodging so much that you've ended up in La La Land. Let's start with the fact that every expert who has examined the skull x-rays has noted that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the back of the head in the same vertical position as the 6.5 mm object. It is within the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Even Sturdivan has acknowledged this fact. One problem posed by this small fragment, of course, is that it cannot be the lateral view, or the partner image, of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-rays. Nobody but nobody denies that this small bullet fragment is within the AP x-ray's image of the 6.5 mm object. Nobody.
Then, let's graduate to the fact that HSCA radiology consultant Dr. G. M. McDonnel detected an even smaller back-of-head fragment between the galea and the outer table, 1 cm below the cowlick site, and slightly to the left of the small fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object. No expert has denied the existence of the McDonnel fragment.
Next, let's graduate to the fact that Dr. Mantik has confirmed the existence of both of these fragments with multiple OD measurements. Using high magnification, he was even able to determine the size of the small back-of-head fragment inside the AP image of the 6.5 mm object (6.3 x 2.5 mm).
A "ricochet from a shot that never happened"? Uh, even Gerald Posner agrees that the five witnesses who described seeing a bullet strike the pavement near the limo are credible.
The problem is that since you are chained down by the lone-gunman theory, you can't offer a credible explanation for the pavement strike. Posner tries to explain it with his whacky tree-limb-collision theory where an FMJ bullet supposedly split apart after hitting one of the oak tree's branches and then sent one fragment to strike the pavement and another fragment to strike the Tague curb over 400 feet away with enough force to send a chip of concrete streaking toward Tague.
There's really no "mystery" and really nothing "mysterious" about the two back-of-head fragments, unless one is chained down by the absurd lone-gunman theory and only has three shots to account for every wound, every fragment, every pavement strike, every curb strike, and every other miss (the Aldredge bullet strike, the Foster-Walthers bullet strike, the deformed bullet found in the limo and seen by Dr. James Young, etc.).
We've known for years that even the Clark Panel privately believed that the back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays was a ricochet fragment.
Finally, I notice that you ignored the issues of the high fragment trail and the cortical and subcortical damage. Again, are you ever going to explain what entry site can explain the high fragment trail? And are you ever going to explain how a single bullet could have caused two different and unconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the cortical damage high in the brain and the subcortical damage much lower in the brain?
