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

[Michael T. Griffith]

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?

[Jack Nessan]

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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? 

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?

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?

You are trying to have it both ways.

MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”

MTG-” 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?”

 
How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds. Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds. JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear. The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.

I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, noting that the entry wound was near the hairline:

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here.
SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

During his HSCA interview, Kellerman drew a diagram that the put the entry wound about 2 inches below the exit wound and well to the left of the right ear (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).

Kellerman also saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. In the segment preceding the above-quoted testimony, Kellerman said the large wound was in the rear portion of the head, to the left of the right ear:

Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right
in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81)

In his WC testimony, Kellerman also noted that he told Agent Clint Hill that he wanted him to see the wounds and that he "pointed out the wounds to Hill" (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 7). This is noteworthy because in his 11/30/63 report, Agent Hill confirmed this and twice noted that the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head:

As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely; Part of his brain was gone. . . . 
         
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745)

So Hill saw the same wound that he observed for several minutes en route to Parkland that he saw in the Bethesda morgue when he was asked to view JFK's wounds, and that wound was in the right-rear part of the skull. 

Kellerman's HSCA diagram also showed a large wound in the back of the head (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).

[Michael T. Griffith]

You are trying to have it both ways.

MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”

MTG-” 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?”

Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
 

How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds.

Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.

Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds.

Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.

You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.

JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear.

Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).

And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).

What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.

The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.

LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.

I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.

If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.

[Jack Nessan]

Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
 
Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.

Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.

You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.

Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).

And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).

What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.

LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.

If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.

Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.

How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?

How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?

How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?

How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?

How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)

How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?

Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?

Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)

Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).

Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?

How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

[John Mytton]

How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?

How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?

How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?

How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?

How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)

How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?

Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?

Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)

Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).

Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?

How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?



1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!



2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?



3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.



4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.



The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty

@2:50

5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.



6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.

I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.



As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.





The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?

Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.

When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?

1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!

Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.

2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?

LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?

When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?

3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.

That's a joke, right?

4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.

Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?

If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?

You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.

The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty

Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.

Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)

5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.

More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.

6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.

I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.

As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.

The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm JohnM

Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.

Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:

------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.

Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.

But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)

If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.

1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.

2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.

3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.

4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.

5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)

Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.

For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------

It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?