In summary, after having reviewed the entirety of the autopsy photographs and x-rays, I believe that there are three major conclusions:
Source: Randolph Robertson Examines 120 Film of the JFK Autopsy
(Reader advisory: contains graphic images of President Kennedy’s autopsy)
208 thoughts on “Dr. Randolph Robertson examines filmed images of the JFK autopsy that have never been made public”
“…P.S. I doubt seriously that “Mr. Photon was ever in intelligence. Only an observation!”-DM
Wow, talk about burying the lead… not a peep of curiosity from the good doctor about the glaringly obvious scalp surgery at the hairline above JFK’s right forehead. What’s that all about, Doc?
Nor any mention that no less than 18 Parkland medical staff declared that they saw a fist-sized blowout exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.
This article speaks volumes in what it chooses to ignore about the full set of autopsy photos and x-rays, rather than what it purports to reveal about three over-exposed photos courtesy of SSA Kellerman.
Pat Speer, Willy and everybody:
We have a fundamental problem here. Who the heck said that physicians know the first thing about physics? Additionally, all the information and conclusions processed by our esteemed doctors Robertson, Mantik et al. is of a STATIC nature. Not to mention being jailed into 2 dimensions.
Back in college, one of my physics professors had a nice additional income. Every time there was an expensive, contentious car crash in Cedar Rapids, they called him as expert witness. He collected diagrams, pictures, tire marks, road surface conditions, etc. from the accident. He researched the weight of the involved vehicles and related data. Next, he built a mathematical model, which was of a DYNAMIC nature and allowed him to test all kinds of hypotheses.
I don’t have to explain the similarity of 2 colliding vehicles and a bullet colliding with a human head, do I?. For the point of view of physics they are the same problem: conservation of momentum is at the core.
I just saw a bowling simulation game, based on the same principles. Let’s take the next step: the user can try every conceivable angle, bullet weight and shape, distance, cranium thickness, brain matter density, etc. until one scenario is found which closely fits the observed results. Incidentally, doctor Robertson got excited about this part when I explained it to him.
Please go to this Google Drive and read the respective chapters dedicated to the frontal shot from these two books, “Hear No Evil” and “Head Shot”.
[Click into folder “Documentation”]
In the latter book, Paul Chambers (*) builds a simple model (state of the art, by last century standards) which nonetheless allow us to determine that a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet cannot achieve the required momentum to move an adult at that speed …
… BUT a Winchester can.
(*) PhD in Physics and Engineering who has worked for NASA.
We have a fundamental problem here. Who the heck said that anybody but forensic pathologists know the first thing about forensic pathology? That is the assumption that CTers have to make, as EVERY Forensic pathologist to have reviewed the case ( save Wecht) has stated that JFK was hit by only 2 shots from the rear.
No other scenario is possible, no matter how many simulations you create based on false assumptions, no matter how many claims are made that the directions of the shots could be deduced by the Zapruder film and JFK’s movements.
If you believe in real science and real evidence evey theory that does not account for 2 and only two shots from the rear has to be invalid.
It is really quite simple.
“Who the heck said that anybody but forensic pathologists know the first thing about forensic pathology?”~Photon
I do, among several others here Photon, because there are other issues involved here. One is “who pays the piper calls the tune”, but also ballistic science founded in physics as well as medical advances have outpaced all of your beloved “experts” working for the authorities.
Your “Magic Bullet” is based in quack science, regardless of who sold their soul to the devil to back it up.
If you refuse to accept the opinions of real experts with documented experience, expertise and proven accuracy why do you accept the claims of people who have never seen an autopsy, who have never seen a bullet wound, who have never been involved in a medico- legal investigations?
It is not a rational argument.
Photon, your idea of rational and mine are diametrically opposed. It has to do with my thinking for myself and you thinking from your dogmatic indoctrination.
And ne’er the twain shall meet.
Scientific hypothesis stands or falls on the evidence behind it and not on the status of the person who makes it.
One of the things that Ramon is totally unaware of is that a year of college-level physics is a requirement for entry into medical schools in the U.S.
And WHAT Winchester? What caliber? A totally ludicrous statement from someone who obviously knows nothing about Winchesters.
“A study at Harvard Medical School has shown that students are successful in … Supplemented their education with at least one year of college or university … of biochemistry, cell biology, and genetics into most areas of medicine. … We will accept advanced or higher-level biology courses towards this requirement as well.”
Funny Photon, I do not see “Physics” mentioned there at all.
That is Harvard. Where did you go to become a “doctor” Photon? Langley’s Spooks Anonymous?
Willy, please go to he Harvard Medical School website for admissions, specific requirement 3: ” All applicants must complete a full year of Physics.”
Did you even read the complete entry? It is one thing to make a claim, it is an entirely different matter to completely ignore the fact presented a few paragraphs later that refutes that claim-from the SAME SOURCE.
“…touche’ Mr. Whitten!”
As a “post script…” regardless of whomever is whatever…with regard to the autopsy photo itself, I believe the photo is posterior to anterior in view. Just beyond the “beveled” wound in the posterior of the skull, one will note the “eye,” minus the optical nerve and so forth(left intact somewhat for austhetics i think? just a guess).”-DM
Yikes, I just read through a 150 comments to see if anyone among those arguing about Dr. Robertson’s claim the photos are legit had mentioned that–oh, yeah–Dr. Robertson firmly believes the head shot was fired from the front.
And no one had.
Thank you Pat Speer,
I did not know the answer to what Dr. Robertson’s opinion on the direction of the head shot was until you answered here.
Can you lead us to where Dr. Robertson makes himself clear on this matter?
[Willy Whitten wrote:]
“Can you lead us to where Dr. Robertson makes himself clear on this matter?”
I can attest to Pat’s comment, Willy. Doctor Robertson told me himself, on the phone, a few days ago.
I still owe him some explanations which may veer his mind a little bit. They are related to the fact that it is physically impossible for this shot …
http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Tangential-Shot-Symmetric.png (regardless of origin!)
… to produce a violent back snap.
Such impossibility would leave only the “neurological spasm” hypothesis, which is even easier to shred to tears.
Thanks for the Videos Ramon,
The JFK 3D test, doesn’t account for the actual wound:
The one with the entrance at the right temple and creating a trough to the Occipital-Parietal.
The other page will not open for me, I get a message that it doesn’t exist…?
“The one with the entrance at the right temple and creating a trough to the Occipital-Parietal. ”
You are referring this trajectory (or close):
which is not only physically possible, but it is the only trajectory which accounts perfectly for the violent back snap.
“The other page will not open for me, I get a message that it doesn’t exist…?”
I am very embarrassed (not to mention pissed off). It seems that my long-standing Internet provider, patriot.net, went out of business or something. I cannot connect myself.
That is my cue to finally leave my home base, to fly off the nest, if you will.
Ramon, your trajectory is specifically ruled out by Dr.Robertson, who stated that the fragments ejected were not from the posterior part of the skull that your animation postulates they were.
If I recall, Dr. Robertson spells out his reasons for believing there was a frontal headshot in this video:
I think that the paragraph before his 3 conclusions puts his medical reasons for believing in a frontal head shot in doubt.As most of his belief for a frontal head shot was based not on medical evidence but conspiracy factoids I wonder what his current belief really is.
” I still owe him some explanations which may veer his mind a bit.” What does that mean Ramon-did Robertson admit to doubts about his previous stand? Does he need non-medical “evidence” to support it as his previous conclusions have by his own admission been called into question?
Photon: If you want to hold a proper discussion you are cordially invited to join the Education Forum.
Don’t get me wrong, JFK Facts is a great resource, and I keep on coming back here, but participants cannot start a thread and the responses become narrower until they reach a dead end.
I have a lot of respect for David Von Pein, who is always around and available to defend his positions. You should follow his lead.
You are excused for not having a name: that is your Constitutional right. Hiding here in JFK Facts, however, with a “cut & run” style, does not afford you much credibility.
-Ramon Fernando Herrera Gonzalez
There’re are several interesting aspects to this video.
Dr. Robertson admitted to buying the alteration claims ” hook,line and sinker” before actually studying the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. His most recent comment seems to reinforce his belief that the eyewitness testimony of the Parkland doctors is simply not reliable. The majority of his talk focuses not on the x-rays, which he barely mentions, but on the autopsy photos, the fragments and the ejecta patterns. He brings up a second,simultaneous headshot from the grassy knoll-without making a case for it, even to the point of getting a question from the audience asking him to
clarify his position. He seems to be following the Wecht scenario-a second shot from the front through the head wound created by the shot from the back-with no evidence that such a shot was made, or even possible.
The errors-not based on medical evidence but conspiracy factoids:@ 9:48 ” where Billy Harper originally told the FBI where he recovered it.” Harper never told the FBI where he recovered it and when he actually told Cranor where he found it it was NOT where Robertson claims it was found. .Describing the Delta fragment @ 10:17 ” Described in detail by Jackie Kennedy, who recovered it from the trunk of the limo…” There is no truth in that statement.
Dino Brugioni was considered the foremost imagery intelligence analyst in the U S at one time. He was also a founding member of NPIC. He died in 2015.
I’m sticking with an expert of international renown regarding alteration of the Zapruder Film.
He was also a witness to history in that he viewed the Original Zapruder Film the weekend after 22/11/63.
We do not see the entire motorcade as frames were cut likely before Kennedy entered the death trap on Elm.
I believe Brugioni when he says the blood spray from the terrible head shot played out over more frames.
Great MDG! You just keep on believing. That’s what True Believers are born to do.
Mr. B had multiple interests -frankly the JFK assassination was not one of them. I never heard him state any opposition to the Warren Report conclusions. Even after his wife passed on years ago he continued to be active in Civil War circles, which are active in the greater Stafford County area. He enjoyed discussing “In Deadly Earnest” as I had relatives mentioned in that book and he had great interest in that obscure theatre of the War.
He never refused any request for help with information as long as it did not involve confidential matters, even to the point of giving presentations to Stafford Cty schools. As such he would explain events that he was associated with to anyone with an interest. Unfortunately he was never aware of how the CT community would take his comments out of context and imply things that he did not actually believe.
That will be my last comment on him.
“Unfortunately he was never aware of how the CT community would take his comments out of context and imply things that he did not actually believe.”~Photon
Frankly this comment like everything else Mr Clickbate has to say here, is loaded and spun like punking dice.
The fact is the “CT community” has not taken his comments out of context. A small faction of zealots led by charlatans have taken his comments out of context.
It isn’t loaded. It’s true.
Mr B was a gold mine of information on several topics.
The ironic thing is that he actually lived near a gold mine.
“That will be my last comment on him.”~Photon,
January 3, 2016 at 8:54 am
Well it didn’t take long to belie that statement above did it?
What relevance does this new gem of questionable information have to do with the fact that the greater portion of the researchers in the JFK community do not accept the goofy alterationist story?
How do we know “Photon” had any relationship at all with “Mr B”- Brugioni?
I think ‘Photon’ is merely attempting to boost credibility for the anonymous commentator that he is.
Healy, David July 15, 2015 at 1:57 pm
“appears you may be a tad envious, eh?
Are you a .john-ite, David VonPein adherent? Have you been commercially published regarding any subject matter re the JFK assassination? Blogs/website not withstanding.
Please fill us in regarding your film “expertise” concerning evaluation of the Zapruder Film and possible alteration of same.”
. . . . . .
You may not know who Healy is, but he is one of the supposed “film experts” that supports Horne & Fetzer’s nonsense about the Z-film.
I offered to debate him one point at a time there, but he never replied after this first post.
I reminded him of this:
Let us review some facts, beginning with this quote from Roland Zavada:
“You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the
presentation by David Healy “HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s
May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of
SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.
In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he
was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera
and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the
types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special optical effects changes.(pg 15)”~Rolland Zavada
…” challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve.”~Raymond Fielding – author of the “bible of film effects”: TECHNIQUES OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY
Can you provide a cite for this particular quote?
“Can you provide a cite for this particular quote?”~John McAdams
Yes, of course. It is the last of these three links that has the quote by Raymond Fielding. I send all three for those who would like an education in film, film machinery, and special effects cinematograpy.
— Zavada’s cover letter
— Zavada’s full reply to Horne
— Zavada & Fielding reply to Horne
OK, Clint Bradford’s site.
His main Zavada menu is here:
“Without engaging in the arguments over alteration, Rollie Z says it has now been determined that there was an unslit copy in the possession of the Secret Service, so McMahon has been proven right one again, even though the first response to his interview was to mock him.”~William Kelly – 31 May 2010 – 09:24 AM.
It is too bad that Kelly cannot distinguish from the term “copy” and the original extant film. McMahon is proven right in that he had a COPY not the original film. Just as Dino Brugioni had a COPY. It is clear that the extant film was never at NPIC nor at the Hawkeye Plant.
Also Jean, Brugioni states quite clearly he saw the entire motorcade the entire Original Zapruder Film.
He saw all 486 plus frames.
“Also Jean, Brugioni states quite clearly he saw the entire motorcade the entire Original Zapruder Film.
He saw all 486 plus frames”
Could you please point out where he said that on this video (or exactly what he said, verbatim)?
Did you notice that in the first part of this video Horne placed “the” head wound on the low back of his head [c. 3:40], which is not the same place Brugioni later put it, on the top right[28:30,e.g.]? Compare where they placed their hands. That alone should tell you that Brugioni saw the original one-and-only Z film, which never showed anything but a top right head wound.
Horne claimed that the real wound was “blacked out” and that the top head wound (“seen by no one at Parkland”) was later “painted on.” How did Brugioni see it in the original Z film, then? Why didn’t Brugioni describe the “real” head wound where Horne put it in the low back of the head? Because it wasn’t there in the original, extant film.
Later on a narrator (not Horne) *told* Brugioni that the Z film showed various misleading things that Brugioni naturally disagreed with. The head debris *does* extend 3 to 4 feet in the air and the “pink mist” *can* be seen for more than one frame. Whether intentionally or not, the narrator lied to Brugioni.
Brugioni says the terrible headshot with spray was not contained to Z313. It played out over more than just one frame.
It is quite unbelievable to seeing the explosion of Kennedy’s brain in one neat frame. Brugioni says the blood spray was at least 3 – 4 feet in the air with one piece of the head flying off.
Clint Hill has written that that’s why Jackie climbed onto the back of the limouisine retrive part of her husband’s head. Hill also saw the piece fly off!
Brugioni also saw a piece of JFK’s head fly off into the air. This is not seen in the Z Film.
He says quite clearly “that what I saw was different than in other altered versions of the Zapruder Film”.
And Jean yes the effects of the terrible headshot as Kennedy is ambushed, lays dying and finally falls toward his wife is shown over quite a few frames. But that’s not the point.
“Brugioni says the blood spray was at least 3 – 4 feet in the air with one piece of the head flying off.”~MDG
Exactly what is seen in z313
“Also Jean, Brugioni states quite clearly he saw the entire motorcade the entire Original Zapruder Film.”~MDG
We do see the entire motorcade in the Zapruder film.
If you are referring to the turn onto Elm, after 33 years Brugioni is surely mixing this up with seeing that on different films.
You are attempting to assert a 33 year old memory of something seen one evening, trumps the actual product in existence to this day.
You are asserting above with the head shot removal of frames that would destroy the natural continuity of movement of the people in the limo as the film exists today. In essence MDG you are asserting absurdities.
Zapruder obviously stopped filming after the limo didn’t appear after the first motorcycles passed and the cars didn’t follow. Then it caught him by surprise when the cars finally did come around the corner and he began filming again. That is the only obvious jump in continuity in the film. The few missing frames that LIFE burnt make cause so slight of jumps that it is only obvious if you look for it.
And then you are up against the technical impossibility of creating an undetectable forgery using Kodachrome II. A point no one can dance around with spurious rhetoric.
If Brugioni, or anyone else have such perfect memories of seeing the entire extant film, why doesn’t anyone recall the other side of the film containing shots of Zapruder’s home, the red pick up truck etc?
It is because Horne coached and nudged Brugioni during his questioning to get what he was after.
I propose and have before that Douglas Horne and Jim Fetzer are conning everyone with the made up story of Hawkeyworks making a special effects film using the Z-film as material to manipulate.
The processes they suggest were used is simple impossible with 8mm film. That is all there is to it.
Both Fetzer and Horne are too illiterate on the techniques of special effects to make a convincing case to anyone who is familiar with such effects and the processes used to achieve them.
Wally Whitten………. Can you actually come up with an argument that the terrible head shot could possibly be contained in one frame Z313?
I would like to hear what you have to say about this. No offensive language please.
If you have an argument why the terrible head shot does not play out across more frames in the Zapruder Film then let’s hear it.
I just dont understand why this website allows verbal abuse such as “utterly ignorant of …..” . We may disagree but why print this.
Our mission is an honourable one here Whose side of this are you really on W. Whitten?
I had hoped to avoid doing this once more on one more thread because MDG seems want to make every thread here about the Z-film…
“Wally Whitten………. Can you actually come up with an argument that the terrible head shot could possibly be contained in one frame Z313?”
Because it takes less than a thousandth of second for a bullet to pass through a head. 1 frame of 8mm film passes @ 1/16th second.
. . .
“verbal abuse such as “utterly ignorant of …..”~Ibid
It is not verbal abuse to state a fact MDG. It is less so verbal abuse than insinuating that I must belong to the flat earth society. Aye?
As I have noted the transparencies used to make these 4K scans are at least three, perhaps four or five generations from the original frames of the film. I asked you if you comprehended the gravity of such compounded contrast that would build up in a 3rd generation copy.
You did not answer, nor even acknowledge my question. So I will answer now what the results of such compound contrast would to to an image, The darkest portions would get darker. especially black, at the same time the brights would be brighter. As these two properties work together what happens is ‘border-lining’ as the contrast separates and saturates the light densities.
In effect and put to context in our conversation here, what this means is the black areas of Kennedy’s head would become separate “blobs” , shape-shifting as the angle and POV changed.
All of the technical issues of film, light, and special effects are covered in the article on my blog that I have offered here.
I will also add that the issues of the witness testimonies concerning the alleged “Limousine Stop”, are addressed in the long list of commentary following the initial post on the technical matters of the Z-film, on my blog.
As well I go into the medical issues. All of this is drawn together at one place for a comprehensive defense of the Zapruder Film as an authentic representation of the Kennedy Assassination:
(To Willie…) “Can you actually come up with an argument that the terrible head shot could possibly be contained in one frame Z313?”
Because it wasn’t contained in only frame Z313. The narrator in Horne’s film *told* Brugioni that, but it’s untrue. Here are frames 314 and 315.
(notice the debris to the right of the woman’s skirt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUMnHArdY_4 (frames 313-315)
Brugioni also said the explosion went high in the air over the top of his head, which is what we see in the Z film today. We aren’t told which frames Brugioni was shown when he was interviewed, we only hear what the interviewer told him, which was misleading.
It is obvious that the RESULTS of the shot to the head are apparent all the frames after the initial shot at Z313, until JFK topples over and is no longer visible.
I was attempting to answer MDG’s question with precision, as to the “instantaneous” nature of a bullet strike in human perception.
“Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.”
What Doug Horne described above has been sitting at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas since 1999 available for inspection. There is no question whatsoever that the MPI transparencies were made directly from the in-camera original. It is indisputably a “first generation copy.” At some point in the future someone may be able to show whether the Wilkinson copy is a “third generation copy” or a “fifth generation copy.” Right now all we have are different people saying different things at different times. However this turns out in the future, the Wilkinson copy is at least two generations downstream from the MPI transparencies and possibly four generations downstream. In Doug Horne’s own words, the MPI transparencies are the “control.”
I’ve said many times that my examination of the transparencies and frame 317 in particular showed no indications whatsoever of the socalled “patch effect.” Instead of looking at the transparencies and seeing whether or not I’m right, Fetzer has started a new tune: “Since the MPI transparencies don’t show the same effect as the Wilkinson copy, the MPI transparencies must have been doctored by persons unknown.” So once again the conspiritorial alteration of the Zapruder film has to spin additional conspiracies to keep itself alive. At least, this seems to be Fetzer’s view. The other alternative is the simple photographic principle that direct copies are to be preferred to secondary copies and that each copying process leads to contrast build-up. Take your choice. Conspiracies piled on conspiracies or contrast buildup piled on contrast buildup.”~Josiah Thomson
The horrible headshot is too neatly contained in Z313. It seems highly likely frames were excised in the Z313 – Z317 part of the Zapruder Film as many have alleged.
This has always looked not believable to me.
Brugioni discussed this with Horne in an interview on another thread.
Dr Perry and his fellow doctors in the Dallas ER were not wrong about their observations about President Kennedy’s wounds. They were not wrongabout a shot from the right front killing Kennedy.
These doctors had no reason to lie but at the same time were threatened to never discuss what they had witnessed in the Dallas ER that day.
The fix was in for the truth by the time Kellerman was destroying photos at the Official Autopsy.
Also I dont believe
As you know, I strongly disagree with you.
I know you are utterly ignorant of film and special effects. But not only that, but you misinterpret the medical evidence, in furtherance of your mistaken opinion on the Zapruder Film.
The head wound was in the Occipital-Parietal – NOT the Occipital Protuberance. This suits the Parkland doctor’s testimonies, and the autopsy photo’s. There is controversy over the skull X-rays, that seem to be ‘doctored’ in some way.
I register this rebuttal, not to relitigate what has already been said on past threads. So I think continued back and forth here is not only a’topical but redundant.
“…wow! i must admit, i haven’t read anything written here that wasn’t written before, either one way or another. However: the right superior profile of pres. JFK indicates surgery to the right temple area (as i believe was reported upon by both the FBI Special Agents present at the “second event’ that night…they reported that they were kept out of the room prior if I remember,in their written report(i always call them,”Siscall & Eibert” to remind me of their names; i think it was O’Neill & Siebert!), as well as possible prior reflection of facial skin past the brow and beyond, to at least half way down the nose, which is indicated by a change or disturbance.
The left superior profile photo (B&W) shown, was taken prior to any reflection to the scalp/face of the Pres. due to the appearance of the subjects nose!
The anterior photograph(B&W) shown, indicates nothing to the rear of the Pres.skull of any note; with the aception of the protrusion of the jaw on his right side(see ant. photo.gif)
Internal photos (after reflection) indicate that a large mass, or great amount of bone has been removed(how, I don’t know, do you), presumably by some divine intervention, because there is no eye orbital/socket, or sinus cavities, etc., only “half an eyeball” left(presumably)for cosmetic purposes.
“What happened” to the rest of the eye? The optic nerve,and so forth?
Ahh. Oh well! I’m not a doctor…just some poor, dumb ol’ guy who reads an awful lot and tries to pay close attention, that’s all!”-DM
There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the JFKfacts concerning ballistics.
The most obvious one to me is the matter of a supersonic missile. Most people understand the concept of what causes a “sonic boom” when a supersonic aircraft travels overhead at a speed faster than that of sound — “breaking the sound barrier” – if not they should look up the terms and understand what causes a sonic boom. It is the same mechanism that is involved with a bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound. The bullet is ahead of a pressure wave. By the time the bullet has passed, the pressure wave behind it effects whatever material that bullet may have passed through, creating in effect a “sonic boom” within that material.
In terms of human flesh, this ‘sonic boom’, the overpressure following the path of the bullet, causes an expansion within the flesh AFTER the bullet has passed through it. It is the collapse of that temporary cavitation that causes BACKSPATTER to be ejected from the entry point of that missile.
In the case of a head wound that overpressure takes place in an enclosed space, causing the skull to crack from the cavitation, the backspatter ejects from the entry in the same fashion as from a body wound. But the effects on a skull are dramatic because of the “brisance” of the explosion; that is the ‘overpressure’ taking place in a sealed container.
This is the same mechanics that causes a bullet to fire from the casing, the overpressure within the casing ejects the bullet forward and through the barrel of a gun.
“…not to be an ass Mr. Whitten, but a projectile takes what is known, “as the least path of resistance.” In the case of a firearm or weapon that facilitates a cartridge, the ‘projectile or missile” take the least path of resistance, and is propelled down the barrel of the weapon. the cartridge(in the event of a weapon without a locked breach), is driven to the rear by the gasses, thus ejecting the casing, yada yada.
When a weapon uses a “sionic device, or sound suppressor,” it is preferable to use sub sonic ammo in order to prevent the “cracking sound” that is made from the missile breaking the sound barrier. The “other” sound is simply referred to as “the report,” which is the detonation of the cap/powder within the cartridge that has escaped from the breech or ejection port, and muzzle.
Most modern weapons today that are able to facilitate a sound suppressor, no longer use what are called “wipes”. However; at the time/era of the 1960’s, etc. wipes were used inside of sound suppressors. a “very well made” suppressor of that era (1963) would not have lost enough of the weapons/cartridges effective range, to have made any difference in the Dallas Event with perhaps the exception of accuracy: however, the db/noise level would’ve been like,”a firecracker.”
The effects of bullets upon “people/animals/flesh” is called, Forensic shock. Cavitation by a bullet upon a target, whether it be forensic gell or flesh, is in no way caused by, much less,has anything to do with, the “speed of sound!”No offense! The effect that you are attempting to refer to is caused from something entirly else.” For example: were you to put, oh say, the barrel of a Luger in your mouth, and pull the trigger, it’s obvious that the 9mm(.380 caliber) missile would be unable to achieve maximum velocity(12-1500fps, with a 115gn bullet) and thus, break the sound barrier! But yes; were the bullet unable to penetrate all that dense bone in your cranium, it would in fact create what is known as, “the jetting effect! No offense!” -DM …ps”the supposed, x-ray(the one that’s over exposed by contrast/light, and you never see the teeth)of JFK, showing all the “forensic damage,” et.al. indicates a shot from the front, thus the “impact & spread’ of the bone at the anterior of the skull, but “who knows?”-DM
When the muzzle velocity of a firearm is given, what do you think is meant by the term “muzzle”?
“Bob, if you don’t know the difference in the effect on human tissue between a shot from 1 meter away and one from 88 yards away you have just destroyed what ever claims for ballistic expertise that you have made on this and other blogs. Sort of like your question previously where you asked if JFK had an open casket, you have just let slip a tremendous mistake.”
You still have not explained the difference between a shot at one metre and a shot at 88 yards. I have shot animals from one meter, plus from 100 yards, and I have seen no difference in the wounds.
Are you going to explain your point, or do you need to be hounded, as usual?
Did one of the doctors who did the “autopsy” in Bethesda burn the autopsy report done in Dallas?
There was no autopsy done in Dallas.
Humes burned his original autopsy notes from the Bethesda autopsy.
FYI – see the link below for some additional insight and information to consider .. also note the 12/20/15 comment reference to Photon.
Thank you for posting the link to this fascinating article:
A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs
by Dr. Michael Chesser
It certainly is a thorough examination and clearly presented.
Of course Burnham took down all of my comments-like the one pointing out that neither Chesser nor Mantik were Radiologists, like the one pointing out that Mantik paid a fee to get his densitometry data published in a ‘Predatory’ journal, like the one where neither Mantik nor Chesser were aware of JFK’s osteoporosis that was diagnosed in 1944. Chesser at first claims that he knew that JFK had osteoporosis , then in the next response he states that he didn’t think the diagnosis had been made. What you don’t see is my reference to JFK’s 1944 record which clearly establishes the diagnosis-taken down because it makes it quite obvious that neurologist Chesser who supposedly is an expert in evaluating skull x-rays had no idea that JFK had a medical condition that alters bone density.
No one regardless of their schooling, knowledgeable, credentialed or not, is qualified if they disagree with Dr. Photon, the Anonymous Expert of All.
As usual, one has to read the document itself to see how Photon skews it to spin things to his narrow little point of view.
Perhaps Photon, should review this:
Skull Bone’s Resistance To Osteoporosis Opens Way For New Treatment, Prevention:
But, Paul, Dr. Mantik IS a radiologist. He served an internship and residency in radiation oncology at USC, and served as an assistant professor of radiation medicine at Loma Linda University Medical Center from 1980 to 2006.
You DO recognize radiation oncology as a subspecialty of radiology, don’t you?
Oh, I forgot…you served an “externship” at the Mayo Clinic. What the hell is an “externship,” and how do we confirm your claims when the Mayo Clinic lists no physicians named “Photon?”
No Ed, he is not a diagnostic Radiologist. He is not board certified in Radiology and Radiation Oncology is not a subspecialty of Radiology. It is one of three specialties of oncology, the others being Medical and Surgical oncology. While the American College of Radiology may consider it a medical specialty of Radiology residents are trained in the use of ionizing radiation in the treatment of cancers, not in diagnostic radiographic techniques . It is troubling that Dr. Mantik and his supporters continually obfuscate the fact that he is not a diagnostic radiologist and that his Ph.D. thesis had nothing to do with diagnostic x-rays but instead involved X-ray diffraction , a well known method of investigating protein structure and molecular architecture.
Ed, I hate to break this to you but there is no such thing as an internship in Radiation Oncology, nor in Radiology for that matter.
For a malpractice lawyer I find your ignorance of what an externship is quite surprising .
So there is “no such thing as an internship in…radiology,” but you served “an externship in radiology at the Mayo Clinic?”
I get it; you must be the school nurse at Langley!
A reminder here as to TRAJECTORY:
It is part and parcel to the argument over the backspatter as indicative of an entry wound. That means the shot came from the front, from the south west corner of Dealey, just before the triple underpass. THAT is the logical trajectory.
Seems perfectly unreasonable to me, and the “rules” are enforced equally, except that some are obviously more equal than others…..
I will ask Jeff if I can establish a similar “model” here.
At the http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net the stats link,
display six posts today, and one of the six was posted by other than a founding member!
“What you don’t see is my reference to JFK’s 1944 record which clearly establishes the diagnosis-taken down because it makes it quite obvious that neurologist Chesser who supposedly is an expert in evaluating skull x-rays had no idea that JFK had a medical condition that alters bone density.” — photon
Why has photon waited weeks to document his ongoing claim that John Kennedy suffered a neck abnormality? those long familiar with the claim of osteoporosis are bemused that photon presents it now as a “news flash”.
Greg Burnham has a rigid policy on his private forum relating to pen names, pseudonyms, aliases. Clearly that is his prerogative. photon will have to bring solid evidence to his audience here that Greg deleted his data for reasons other than his own lack of transparency.
I guess you missed my comment? There are several examples of Burnham permitting comments submitted under pseudonyms (greysungrayson and Phillip .nix) to main page articles, including the one I presented in my comment, before Photon commented on the identical article.
It is obvious that agreeable comments remain visible below assassinationofjfk.net front page articles, regardless of the
alias of the submitter.
Photon makes a convincing case that Burnham was only reacting to that particular alias, and what it was really about was deleting information Burnham did not approve of, aka selective censorship of competing claims.
Glad you believe that selective censorship of competing claims is a bad thing.
Yes Tom, as a test of his policies I posted two entries under Norbert on the same site regurgitating Burnham’s inaccurate claims about Chesser and Mantik’s qualifications-even stating that both were radiologists. He didn’t care about an alias, he didn’t care about anything in the posts as long as they agreed with his point of view. This is clear, unadulterated censorship in an attempt to hide facts that are in conflict with his claims.
It is his blog, but I get tired of physicians passing themselves off as experts in fields that they have no training in, knowing that CTers with no knowledge of medical training or board certification will lap up their “expert” opinions as if they mean more than from any other Conspiracy hobbyist. The fact that folks like Burnham try to hide those facts proves my point.
Photon is wrong though, about osteoporosis affecting the bones of the skull. It doesn’t:
“Most bones, except those of the face and head, can be affected by osteoporosis; however, the most common sites of fractures are the hip, spine, wrist and ribs.”
Journal of Osteoporosis . Volume 2011. Article ID147869. Kyrgidis,et al. ” The Facial Skeleton in Patients with Osteoporosis :A Field for Disease Signs and Complications.”
Please read the first sentace of the article,Willy.
“Please read the first sentace of the article,Willy.”~Photon
I have read several articles on Osteoporosis Photon. The skull itself, the solid bones of the skull, the ‘bowl’ itself is not affected by Osteoporosis.
“The Facial Skeleton”
The thinner facial bones can be affected. But that is NOT what we are talking about is it Photo.
Also you cannot prove that Kennedy ever developed Osteoporosis any further than his lower limb problems that all have acknowledged.
You are wrong. Period.
O.K., Paul, Dr. Mantik is not a diagnostic radiologist. But he is a radiologist.
Your SBT doc, the late Dr. Lattimer, was a urologist. Does his concentration on urethras negate his opinions on cervical-thoracic trauma?
And, knowing you would ask, I checked Dr. McClelland’s C.V. He is board certified in general surgery. Do you think he knows his cerebrum from his cerebellum when it is “falling on the table?”
Lattimer never claimed to be a radiologist. He was a battlefield surgeon who treated scores of patients with bullet wounds from D-Day to the end of WWII . Dr Matik has treated HOW many bullet wounds-or even seen HOW many?
Lattimer was a recognized ballistic expert and medical historian whose expertise in the medical aspects of the Lincoln assassination was brought to the attention of the Kennedy family, who chose him to be one of the first non-government physicians granted access to the autopsy records. His findings were largely verified by the HSCA.
Willy, his osteoporosis was not diagnosed in his lower limbs. It was diagnosed in his vertebral bodies. What bones do you think make up the face?
The point is that while the skull bones are not as affected by osteoporosis as the weight-bearing skeleton changes, while subtle, do occur-and can be recognized by real radiologists-which went over the heads of Mantik and Chesser and their booster Burnham, who seems totally ignorant of the real medical facts here.
“What bones do you think make up the face?”
“Any of the bones surrounding the mouth and nose and contributing to the eye sockets, including the upper jawbones, the zygomatic, nasal, lacrimal, and palatine bones, the inferior nasal concha and the vomer, lower jawbone, and hyoid bone.”
These are NOT the bones that make up the “jar” of the skull, which are not affected by Osteoporosis. Even the articles you link to make this point.
Depends on your definition , Willy.Some texts include all bones that make up the face, including the frontal bone. Others do not include the hyoid bone, which actually is in the neck not connected to any other bone except by ligaments.
However, they are present in the JFK skull views and are specifically addressed by Mantik’s densitometry claims. Neither he nor Chesser recognized any osteoporosis in the facial bones nor in any other area of JFK’s skeleton-including back views which they have admitted seeing.
They never would have passed the board question-even if they were eligible to take the Radiology board exam, which they are not.
Yikes. Photon is spewing some seriously silly stuff. He wrote that the HSCA largely confirmed Lattimer’s findings. This avoids that the medical panel firmly rejected his most prominent finding–that JFK’s back wound was too low in the Warren Commission’s drawings–and concluded that it was really two inches lower than in the drawing. This is demonstrated here:
Actually Lattimer’s drawing as presented is moe accurate than you understand Pat, because it represents the bullet’s path while JFK was alive-and takes into account JFK’s abnormal neck condition.
The Ryberg drawing was a schematic representation which was never to be taken as absolutely anatomically correct.it makes no representation of JFK’s abnormal neck condition so at the onset it could never have been a totally accurate recreation.
Again we are burdened with this nonsense from Photon:
“JFK’s abnormal neck condition..”
As well as his scurrilous rhetorical commentary to do with Osteoporosis – which does NOT effect the skull. In some instances it can effect the facial bones. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that Kennedy suffered from osteoporosis in the bones of his neck, face, or skull.
This is a carousel of nonsense from Photon, leading to an endless cycle of flatulent argumentation. Photon’s pretense at medical expertise is revealed in a dramatic fashion here.
Willy, just find a good internist and show him the YouTube entry “August 19, 1962-President John F. Kennedy takes a swim at the beach in Santa Monica, CA.”
If he ia any good he should be able to give you a diagnosis after 0:26.
This diagnosis was confirmed by RFK.
Actually 0:51 could be a board review test photograph for the condition.
It is easy to see why Salinger wanted to cover-up the photographs from this event.
LOL. That video to which you linked, Photon, proves your hero Lattimer was a quack. Lattimer acknowledged that the bullet entered a few inches below JFK’s shoulder line. He claimed, however, that the bullet entered at the level of JFK’s chin. He explained this apparent discrepancy, moreover, by claiming that JFK was a hunchback. Well, there are a number of shots in that video which prove JFK’s shoulder line was at the level of his chin, and that the bullet entrance was thereby several inches below this point.
“Willy, just find a good internist and show him the YouTube entry “August 19, 1962-President John F. Kennedy takes a swim at the beach in Santa Monica, CA.”~Photon
We have been through this entire oinkfest of yours before.
I have nothing left to say to you, but that you are a pretender and a fraud in my book. This whole issue is hogwash, and I presume that you actually KNOW that and are here to waste the forums time.
Pat, Willy-a simple task.Ask an internist to view the film, particularly at the points mentioned.Neither of you are physicians and obviously are not aware of the condition which is visible to a trained eye.
No, no, no, Photon, it is incumbent upon you to cite an internist claiming Kennedy was a hunchback, whose back wound was at the level of his chin. Failing that, it remains clear that Lattimer was blowing smoke.
No,no,no Pat it is incumbent upon you to cite an internist who doesn’t recognize the condition easily visible in the film. The fact that neither you nor Willy have accepted this simple challenge pretty much puts an end to any claim that you may have of medical expertise.
You don’t WANT an expert in physical diagnosis to simply look at the neck. As I have stated RFK became aware of this condition the night of the autopsy.
“No,no,no Pat it is incumbent upon you to cite an internist who doesn’t recognize the condition easily visible in the film.”~Photon
Philosophy: It is a fundamental principle of logic that demands to prove a negative are illogical.
Law: “onus probandi” – The burden of proof is upon the claimant.
“As I have stated RFK became aware of this condition the night of the autopsy.” — photon
This has the appearance of being “insider information” so I trust you can provide a direct source for the claim. Or are you exempt from the obligation?
What exactly is “the condition” that Photon is referring to that RFK commented on after the autopsy?
And what does the mark on Kennedy’s neck indicate other than a scar?
What is the “condition” photon? Either explain this and your proof of it or stop cranking up this lunatic carousel.
Any internist worth his board-certification after viewing that film can give you the answer Willy. All you have to do is ask- if you know any.
Same goes for Pat Speer- he has failed to recognize that Lattimer was correct and that Pat has made incorrect assumptions based on ignorance of JFK’s true anatomy.
Leslie, not only was RFK aware of the condition he later revealed what at the time was the most closely guarded family secret regarding the autopsy.
I see that after months of comments none of the CT experts have a clue as to JFK’s abnormal neck condition. As such any medical ” evidence” claimed by these individuals must be considered incomplete and not accurate.
I have given examples of photographs of JFK that any trained internist should be able to make a diagnosis from. The fact that such CT experts run away from real medical evidence proves that they are not interested in the real truth. Of course, this is even before the documentation confirmed by RFK in interviews after JFK’s death years later.
Thanks for this link Jeff, and credit to Greg Burnham’s site for posting Dr. Chesser’s informative presentation. Dr. Chesser makes a cogent and easily-understood case for a frontal head shot from the south knoll, plus alteration of original autopsy x-rays. He concludes his report with a plea for high quality digital copies to be made of the original autopsy x-rays so that the digital copies may be widely viewed and analyzed. Why would there be any opposition to such a reasonable proposal?
“Back spatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible (James, 2005).
Scientific journals, books, and research published since the late 1980s indicate the blood observed in the Zapruder film displays the pattern shape of back spatter. It also extends from the wound area a distance characteristic of back spatter, particularly when correlated to blood documented elsewhere on the scene. The timing for the pattern creation and the dissipation rate identifies it as back spatter. In fact, all available information concerning the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter replicated in forensic laboratories and described in peer-reviewed publications since the late 1980s. Consequently, the only possible conclusion is the back spatter in the Zapruder film is genuine. Identifying the blood in the Zapruder film as back spatter signifies a shot from the front of President Kennedy.”~Sherry Fiester CSI
See: ‘ENEMY of the TRUTH’
It would appear Willy that your quoted article by Das, Fernandez, et al. bases it’s etiology for backspatter in part on the effects of subcutaneous gases. The test models were shot from a distance of one meter.
As such the article refers ONLY to close shots and would have no value in simulating a rifle shot from several hundred feet away as which happened with JFK.
Did you actually read the article? None of the authors have any experience with human subjects or human anatomy.
“Did you actually read the article?”~Photon
The whole thing bucko.
There are 3 things that can cause backspatter:
(i) subcutaneous gas effects; (ii) temporary cavitation related to intracranial pressure; and (iii) tail splashing. In general, a combination of all three factors may cause backspatter.
“Temporary cavitation related intracranial pressure occurs as a bullet passes through a medium creating a temporary cavity in its wake, a feature of all missile wounds . In the case of a bullet wound to the head, a large temporary cavity would be created because of the low retentive forces of
brain tissue . The brain is contained within the rigid skull, and therefore as a temporary cavity expands a high pressure is created within the cranium. The high pressure within the cranium and the subsequent collapse of the temporary cavity creates a force to drive tissue and blood back out the entrance wound [7, 9]. Karger proposed that anatomical structures similar to liquid filled cavities
provide the best conditions for temporary cavitation . Fackler  believed that the collapse of a temporary cavity is the only mechanism that creates backspatter.”
Please explain the difference between a bullet shot from 88 yards away, and one shot from one meter away.
You will notice this assertion made by the infamous “DR Photon”: “As such the article refers ONLY to close shots”
This is clearly and obviously false, as seen in the very next paragraph after the section he refers to:
I repeat the opening sentence of that paragraph [bolding mine]:
“Temporary cavitation related intracranial pressure occurs as a bullet passes through a medium creating a temporary cavity in its wake, A FEATURE OF ALL MISSILE WOUNDS.”
But the study involves only shots from a meter away and by invoking the gas explanation as an etiology for backspatter( which could only be a factor at close range) it is obvious that the results only pertain to shots at a minimal distance from the target.Read the article.
Bob, if you don’t know the difference in the effect on human tissue between a shot from 1 meter away and one from 88 yards away you have just destroyed what ever claims for ballistic expertise that you have made on this and other blogs. Sort of like your question previously where you asked if JFK had an open casket, you have just let slip a tremendous mistake.
“But the study involves only shots from a meter away and by invoking the gas explanation as an etiology for backspatter.”~Photon
Photon is misrepresenting the article and the whole issue of backspatter here. Anyone can read the article themselves to see that.
Actually Willy is misrepresenting what is in the article. And it makes no mention of Fiester .
More quotes on back spatter….
“The muzzle to target distance is usually contact to close range for
significant back spatter to occur.”
According to this “encyclopedia of forensic science”: “The amount of blood in
the forward spatter will be greater than that of the back spatter and will
travel a greater distance”:
These seem to be two good reasons to doubt that what we see in Z313 is “back spatter.” If I missed anything in the context surrounding these quotes, please point it out.
“Actually Willy is misrepresenting what is in the article. And it makes no mention of Fiester.”
I did not claim the article makes mention of Fiester Photon. The article is on BACKSPATTER. I am posting articles on backspatter because there is confusion as to what it is and what the mechanisms are that cause it.
YOU Photon do not have a clue as to what your are talking about. Is it because you are hysterical at this point? Or are you permanently impaired as far as reading comprehension is concerned? The words are on the page right before you:
“Temporary cavitation related intracranial pressure occurs as a bullet passes through a medium creating a temporary cavity in its wake, A FEATURE OF ALL MISSILE WOUNDS.”
It is the intracranial pressure that causes backspatter in a headshot.
“Fackler believed that the collapse of a temporary cavity is the only mechanism that creates backspatter.”
According to this “encyclopedia of forensic science”: “The amount of blood in
the forward spatter will be greater than that of the back spatter and will
travel a greater distance”~Jean Davison
This is so, the so-called “forward spatter” from the direction the bullet is traveling is the most dramatic. In the JFK head shot, that is the explosion above his head; not in the direction of the bullet, but from overpressures caused from within the skull: Cavitation of the brain matter and cracking the skull, and then collapse of the skull in what could be termed “implosion” — all attributes of a supersonic missile entering the head.
“These seem to be two good reasons to doubt that what we see in Z313 is “back spatter.” If I missed anything in the context surrounding these quotes, please point it out.”~Ibid
Just prior to the large dramatic explosion of Kennedy’s head there is a nod of the head forward and a brief spray of blood that comes from the entry wound in his right temple. That is the BACKSPATTER.
Both points; the movement into the oncoming bullet just as it first touches the skull, and the resulting backspatter are the signal indicators of a wound of entry at that point.
Close analysis of the Z-film has shown the nod forward, before the violent movement back of Kennedy’s head, and the fine mist just prior are recognizable in that film sequence.
“…I’m so glad I had “two” educations; one from life in general, and the other in college..two things i learned in college, is that there are sooo many “educated idiots!” People educated “beyond their own intelligence!”
It has been my experience; whether in combat or college; in font of the classroom, or “in the rear with the gear,”…you have to have common sense! of which some of you (no offense) are sadly lacking.”-DM
Without that, you’re useless
D. E. Mitchell,
Just curious; why do you frame what you write here as a quote?
You would have written that:
“…Just curious, why to you frame what you write here as a quote?’
Are you quoting your ‘other self’ or something?
Note the irony here. For nearly a half century, conspiracists have claimed that the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out, and brain matter flew backward, and that indicated a shot from the front.
Now we have the claim that matter blew out the front, and that indicates a shot from the front.
Of course, if the gore we actually see in the Z-film is back spatter, where is the forward spatter?
“Now we have the claim that matter blew out the front, and that indicates a shot from the front.”~McAdams
You obviously haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Backspatter is a minuscule amount of matter, more of a mist, than the massive blowout of material from an exit wound.
But the massive blowout of matter was forward and upward.
No matter blew out backward, although some of the matter that blew upward landed behind the limo.
We are dealing with the issue of BACKSPATTER here Mr McAdams. Do you still not know what that is?
So the massive amount of blood and gore we see in the Zapruder film is backspatter?
Indicating a shot from the Underpass?
But then were is the forward spatter?
“Back splatter is a minuscule amount of matter, more of a mist, than the massive amout of material from an exit wound.” Willy , you have just demonstrated that Fiester’s interpretation of the spatter pattern cannot be correct. You have just admitted that the massive ejecta pattern seen in the Zapruder film is not consistent with backsplatter , nor is the pattern of blood and brain tissue that coated the Connollys and the inside of the car. Apparently you have completely avoided the fact that backsplatter from JFK’s head wound would not be visible .
Photon, you have just totally misrepresented what I said in my comment of December 30, 2015 at 6:49 pm.
Plus you add:
“Apparently you have completely avoided the fact that backsplatter from JFK’s head wound would not be visible.”
It IS visible Photon right there in the Z-film. Z-313 the red haze obscuring Jackies face, while the upper section is blown out the top of his head. The next frames show a much smaller red blob, which is obvious solid matter.
OK, if the gore we see in the Z film is back spatter from a shot from the front, where is the forward spatter from that same shot?
“OK, if the gore we see in the Z film is back spatter from a shot from the front, where is the forward spatter from that same shot?”~McAdams
As I just explained to Photon; the upper section blown out the top of his head.
But that’s the only “spatter” we see in the film.
So where is the “back spatter” indicating a shot from the front?
“Backspatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter …”
Forward spatter isn’t always present. There was no exit wound to cause forward spatter if the bullet pureed like they want us to believe happened with the SBT, i.e. the CE 399 came out with practically no damage and the bullet that hit JFK in the head broke apart.
“The distribution of bullet fragments begins near the point of entry and continues in the direction of the bullet trajectory in an ever-widening path as it moves away from the entry wound. A lateral view of the same pattern will reveal a conical shape to the fragment distribution. The apex of the pattern is closest to the entry wound and the wider portion of the fragment cone is closest to the exit wound (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998). The House Select Committee on Assassinations heard testimony concerning the characteristics of bullet fragment patterns when Larry Sturdivan testified the majority of metallic fragments are typically deposited nearest the entry wound (HSCA 1: 402). Clark Panel Report also stated the majority of fragments were located in the front and top of Kennedy’s head (ARRB MD59:10-11). Multiple forensic publications indicate X-rays fragment patterns display the majority of fragments near the entry wound. Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays depict the majority of bullet fragments in the front and top of the head, which indicates a frontal shot.”~Sherry Fiester CSI
Because of the complexity of the JFK Murder, the red herrings, the politics, the Cold War context, the messiness — I always welcome the viewpoints of Photon and McAdams without rancor. There’s no real way to get on top of the case — that infatuates all of us — without some serious butting of heads.
Myself, I have shied away from the Single Bullet theory and the Medical evidence, because it doesn’t answer the question, of whether or not there was a conspiracy behind the scenes. Even if Oswald shot Kennedy, it doesn’t answer the question as to whether it was done on someone’s behalf.
Evidence of two shooters (Book depository & grassy knoll) proves a conspiracy.
Lack of two shooters, though, doesn’t disprove a conspiracy. But I do understand what Blakey and the HSCA were trying to do — they were trying to scientifically prove a conspiracy, to go to the next level, although, they didn’t quite do it.
Anyway, this radiological examination is interesting, and should be discussed, and is a valued addition to the quest to find out what happened. But, in my opinion, it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter.
Total agreement with David. We must avoid allowing the conspiracy issue to hinge on the single bullet or more than one shooter.
“Total agreement with David. We must avoid allowing the conspiracy issue to hinge on the single bullet or more than one shooter.”~Thomas
Nor should we avoid the details of any aspect of the case, as it is the aggregate of the whole body of evidence that proves a case.
This coup d’etat is based on the killing of a President by gunfire. One cannot possibly make a case without addressing the issues of ballistics, weapons, chains of custody, crime scene, etc.
If you feel more comfortable with the political machinations as a topic of interest, that is your call. There is plenty of discussion of those issues here as well.
My only point is that the conspiracy issue shouldn’t be defined EXCLUSIVELY in terms of Oswald had accomplices at the scene or that Oswald was framed and didn’t shoot at all. It remains a possibility that Oswald was the lone shooter, but he may still have been manipulated into that position and then murdered before he could say any more about it.
There has been a tendency for researchers to argue in black and white points of view, from broad conspiracies to Oswald was a lone nut. We should remain open to the possibility that Oswald was a shooter, perhaps shooting alone, but was manipulated into this role by others, then discarded so those involvements couldn’t be revealed. Also, as a plausible theory, Oswald was known by authorities to be a threat to the President, but the CIA and perhaps others willfully looked the other way in order to not get their own hands dirty. “Negligence” is easier to cover up and less messy than active involvement if you want somebody rubbed out.
I apologize if my remarks were perceived as disparaging certain areas of inquiry. I think all avenues should continue to be addressed and we move in the direction that the evidence leads…to the degree that such an objective approach is possible in this case.
” Myself, I have shied away from the Single Bullet theory and the medical evidence…”
And that is the crux of the Conspiracy argument-the forensic facts don’t matter.
“Evidence of two shooters …proves a conspiracy.” But what evidence do you have if you refuse to accept the medical evidence that has not been refuted in 50 years ?
Photon: surely you can’t be so dense.
There is no “evidence” that supports the single-bullet theory. It is not a fact. It has been proposed as a solution to the various wounds of the people shot in Dealy Plaza. Certainly it could have happened in the sense that, hey, anything is possible. But if it is true, it would be a billion-to-one event that defied practically every piece of common sense and normal forensics.
Nobody looked at the scene immediately and thought that there must have been one bullet to produce so many wounds of two different men. But deep into the investigation, it was proposed because it was the only way that the execution could have been done by one person, not because it fit any logical explanation of facts. It was reverse-engineered to fit the preferred conclusion.
People are free to believe it of course, but it remains a wildly improbable solution.
Your photoids are disinformation. The medical and ballistics evidence has been widely refuted in print by people involved in the investigation (e.g. read the FBI’s attempt to recreate Oswald’s walk from rooming house to scene of Tippit murder that is core to the timing of his being apprehended at the Texas Theatre) and has been consistently refuted ever since.
A key series of experiments by German pathologist Bernd Karger stands out as the most comprehensive study of backspatter [3, 6, 9]. Nine live New Jersey calves (5-6 months old) destined for slaughter were shot in the right temple 10 cm horizontally below the right eye. Key findings included that backspatter results varied with each shot despite a controlled environment but the pattern was a consistent fine mist with every shot immediately after bullet impact. Synthetic models [2, 4] consisting of blood soaked sponges encased in outer coatings produced more reproducible baskspatter patterns, were inexpensive and avoided ethical issues. There are several case studies [7, 8, 10, 11] that describe backspatter in non-fatal human shootings, suicides, and homicides. These results can provide a specific situation to validate computational models.
The three main mechanisms that are thought to contribute to backspatter include; (i) subcutaneous gas effects; (ii) temporary cavitation related to intracranial pressure; and (iii) tail splashing. In general, a combination of all three factors may cause backspatter. Subcutaneous gas effects result from pressurized gases during the muzzle discharge . During close range shots the pressurised muzzle gases enter the wound produced by the bullet and become trapped in the subcutaneous space between the skin and skull. This causes ‘starburst or stellate’ entrance wounds in what is known as a ‘blow-out’ effect where the skin mushrooms and a pocket is created under the skin [2, 9]. The hot, pressurised gases expand within this pocket space and create a backwards streaming of gas escaping out of the entrance wound. The accelerating force from the escaping gas drives blood and soft tissue opposite to the direction of fire [2, 4, 9].
Temporary cavitation related intracranial pressure occurs as a bullet passes through a medium creating a temporary cavity in its wake, a feature of all missile wounds . In the case of a bullet wound to the head, a large temporary cavity would be created because of the low retentive forces of brain tissue . The brain is contained within the rigid skull, and therefore as a temporary cavity expands a high pressure is created within the cranium. The high pressure within the cranium and the subsequent collapse of the temporary cavity creates a force to drive tissue and blood back out the entrance wound [7, 9]. Karger proposed that anatomical structures similar to liquid filled cavities provide the best conditions for temporary cavitation . Fackler  believed that the collapse of a temporary cavity is the only mechanism that creates backspatter.
The phenomenon of ‘tail-splash’ is the backwards streaming of destroyed material or fluid along the lateral surface of a high velocity bullet as it penetrates a dense medium [9, 13, 14]. Karger  suggested that ‘tail-splash’ occurs when a bullet penetrates the brain and lateral streaming of brain matter and blood occurs towards the line of fire. This is most closely related to the mechanism evaluated in this study.
There have been numerous computational studies of high velocity impacts related to ballistics,
Willy, maybe I am mistaken but I don’t see a single reference to Sherry Fiester in any of your sources.
In addition, the article you quote used non-biological materials that admittedly could not accurately simulate the backspatter patters seen in human gunshot wounds. In order to get the tail-splashing effect that you are so convinced happens with cranial shots they had to resort to a computer model-with absolutely no control mechanism.
The article was an attempt to evaluate non-biological materials to simulate Missle induced backspatter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Fiester , her firing scenario nor her interpretation of JFK’s wounds.
Blood Spatter Analysis is one of Fiester’s specialties.
It is the backspatter from a entry wound that caught Fiester’s attention in the Z-fil; the mist that appears at the same moment of the forward nod of Kennedy’s head. Both indicative to a bullet hitting him from the front. From the autopsy photo’s we see clearly the wound of entrance was the right temple area.
The bullet path begins there with concentration of larger particles and ends at the rear of the skull with the cloud of fine particles. All three points; 1. Target nod towards incoming missile. 2. Backspatter towards incoming missile. 3. bullet fragments from front to back as described above, are consistent with a wound from the front striking Kennedy in the head.
The cone of trajectory analysed by the science of Photogrammetry, is an issue discussed here before.
This analysis places the shooter near the underpass at the south west corner of Dealey Plaza.
All cutting edge ballistics, and blood spatter analysis.
So, Kellerman exposes the film to light and destroys the exposures. Just to prove they are destroyed, the roll of film is developed.
In 1998, through some new and magical process, this roll of film, which many would have simply thrown in the garbage once it was determined all the exposures were destroyed, is “digitalized and enhanced” and lo and behold, three photos magically appear which just happen to support the autopsy findings, and contradict McLelland and many others at Parkland.
Pull the other one, it plays “Jingle Bells”!
Bob Prudhomme, (on another topic so my apologies to this thread) but I’ve been waiting for you to return to ask if you would provide a link to your full essay related to the shot dispersion based on the FBI’s “experiments” with alleged murder weapon. I can’t seem to locate it. thanks.
Let’s add Randy Robertson to the ever growing list of lying scum cover-up artists conspiring to frame Oswald.
(Notwithstanding that he believes in an exit wound in the rear.)
The list just keeps growing.
What’s the current count? Two hundred? Three hundred?
John, if Oswald couldn’t get off two shots in 1.5 seconds with the same weapon, there were other shooters. I doubt he could have done that, so I believe there were other shooters, and thus he had to be framed to protect the shooters.
Not sure where you got the “two shots in 1.5 seconds.”
Correction – It was the same Kellerman in the front seat of Presidential Limousine, and the one in the death car that allegedly stopped. Wasnt it Kellerman’s obligation to exit that limo and throw his body over the President.
Kellerman did many unexpected things that day. He perhaps had another master that day. Many players in Crime of the Century. And the Coverup.
Somehow however Clint Hill mustered the internal fortitude to do his sworn duty with regards to the First Lady.
In response to Photoon’s clsme that no certified specialists who have viewed the photos and. X-Rays say there was a shot from the front – when the certified US Army snipers I have talked to say that regardless of direction the fatal head shot was not taken by the Sixth Floor Sniper but by a first class sniper whose motto is “one shot one kill” – a clean hit from whatever direction you want to believe but not taken by the Third Class sniper in the Sixth Floor. The head shot was a professional miliitaru hit.
‘snipers I have talked to say that regardless of direction the fatal head shot was not taken by the Sixth Floor Sniper but by a first class sniper whose motto is “one shot one kill” – a clean hit from whatever direction you want to believe but not taken by the Third Class sniper in the Sixth Floor. ‘
I take it another level: experts tell me that even the most amateur sniper would never risk those shots from the position he would have to assume lodged into that corner, elbows, shoulders, knees all crunched, particularly considering the parameters of the open window; so the argument became .. the shooter was sitting on a box . . . but that presents an even more grotesque pose for a shooter – leaning over and subtly adjusting the rifle when in fact at a very particular degree, the window frame and the brick facade would present a significant obstacle. Did the shooter know he could hit Kennedy within those 6 seconds? That’s an amazing margin of error for a spontaneous assassin like Lee Oswald. Add into that version of events a box tilted precariously on the window sill and you have a sniper’s nest that has yet to be analyzed properly.
Sure Bill. Name one.But please don’t bring up that Craig Roberts’ lie about Carlos Hathcock.
Exactly how many of the experts have seen an autopsy?
Bill, where are the experts that you claim to know?
What is a First Class sniper? What is a Third Class sniper? Or perhaps when you made up the terms along with your phantom Army snipers you didn’t think anybody would challenge your statement.
I suspect that everything that you know about military sniper training and tactics come out of Craig Roberts book with the Hathcock lie. Roberts-the humanitarian sniper who never took a shot at anybody as a sniper.
No to Roberts and Heacock – I work part time occasionally at a Joint Forces military base as a COB citizen on the battle field – usually as an Arab and play the bad guy with Op Forces – and once worked with first class snipers with first class equipment and spotters and read their manuals – 2nd class sniper has some additional training in regular army but third class sniper has basic training, little practice and third rate weapon – like the sixth floor sniper – whoever he was. First class is the hardest to counter and combat as most of their training is in concealment, deception and extraction.
It is not surprising at all that we see these wounds that were altered at the Secret Autopsy at Bethseda.
I believe these are the altered wounds that fit the Single Bullet Theory.
It is so astonishing to read of Kellerman ‘s involvement with the photos. This is the same Kellerman driving the Presidential Limousine, stopping the alleged limousine during an Assasination in Progress, and the same Kellerman brandishing a machine gunin the Dallas ER. He was also in charge of Kennedy’s security on 22/11/63.
If things had been working as they should that day all photos should have been preserved but they werent.
“This is the same Kellerman driving the Presidential Limousine, stopping the alleged limousine during an Assasination in Progress..”
Good grief MDG, if you are going to make outrageous claims, at least get the personnel right! William Greer was driving the Presidential limousine that day; not Agent Kellerman.
Did SS agent Kellerman intentionally try to destroy these images? And if so why?
Or am I just reading this wrong?
Kellerman sits like a wooden statue while the president he’s sworn to protect is shot up just a few feet away, then bulldozes Dr. Rose to illegally remove the corpse to Washington and for the hat trick he destroys film evidence at the official autopsy. Typical behavior of the federal government goons who abound in this murder case. As for Dr. Robertson’s not-new take on poor quality photos from a suspect autopsy, the eyewitness testimony from the Parkland doctors remains the gold standard in truthfully describing the head (and throat) wounds.
Nope, your not reading it wrong, at least the way I understand it. Thanks for posting as most credible researchers refuse to anymore as a result of the bashing’s they get from McAdams and Photon, IMO.
I have read several account of Kellerman taking the film out and exposing it to light. I think Jerold Custer, the X-ray tech is one of the witnesses to this.
I have also read that Kellerman didn’t realize the photographer was one of the official photographers there. Still, it is rather brutish and uncalled for behavior. Apparently one of Kellerman’s character flaws. Wonder if he still had his machine gun with him. Lol
That’s the troubling impression I got from the story, Bill. Another instance of evidence tampering-and there were many.
“He is admitting that there is no case for a bullet from the front being responsible for JFK’s head wound.”~Photon
He admits, nor said any such thing. The wound has always been described as “Occipital-Parietal” — the photos clearly show the wound in the temple.
This wound has been determined to be the entry wound of a shot from the front. Whether you accept the analysis of CSI Feister or not, it is the most sophisticated analysis to date of the trajectory of the shot that caused these wounds. Her analysis is based on the very photographs now redeemed authentic; as well as the skull X-rays with the “galaxy” of particles caused by a fragmenting bullet.
Still can’t find that forensic pathologist, can you Willy? Why don’t you ask “CSI Fiester” exactly what she is certified in, and by what body? Why don’t you ask her how many murders from rifle shots to the head that she has seen, let alone investigated.
Nobody with any real expertise in forensic pathology or ballistics who has seen the x-rays and photographs believes that JFK was hit from the front.After 50 years, NOBODY.
How about the President of the American Academy of Forensic Science, Dr. Cyril Wecht?
Fiester is a court certified expert in Crime Scene Reconstruction and blood Spatter Analysis in Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida… and louisiana State Federal Court. Instructor…Published, both fields.
” Fiester.. Published, both fields.” Published in what? CT journals? What has she published in technical journals that has anything to do with the specifics of this case-or her claimed level of expertise? Do you think that a real researcher would ever be caught dead being filmed performing a singing number with two other no-talents at of all places Dealey Plaza? A person whose sister is part of the JFK assassination gravy train and invited her to get involved in the business? NOBODY with any real expertise in this subject has ever supported her conclusions-even Cyril Wecht has stated that she is wrong.
You have prattled on and on about CSI Fiester’s credentials, but you have never once addressed her analysis. You obviously haven’t even read her analysis. You haven’t read the citations of other forensic crime scene investigators that she uses in her studies.
You are not merely dismissing Ms Fiester in your uninformed hand waving, but a long list of crime scene investigators, ballistics experts, and other experts that she draws her materials from.
So you continue to make an argument from ignorance concerning what Fiester has actually said, and shown.
As I pointed out before crime scene investigators have a wide ranging expertise to be able to communicate with the experts from other fields in solving crimes.
Willy, give me just one bona-fide expert who supports Fiester’s shooting scenario.
Penetrating gunshots to the head and lack of immediate incapacitation. I. Wound ballistics and mechanisms of incapacitation.~Karger B1.
Understanding Backspatter due to Skull Fracture from a Ballistic Projectile
Raj Das1,*, Justin Fernandez2, Alistair Collins1, Anurag Verma1, Michael Taylor3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 2
Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 3
Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
“Following a firearm discharge, “high velocity” blood spatter  is created and often characterised by a finely spattered pattern . The spatter pattern is usually circular when the projectile is at right angles to the surface and a narrow elongated pattern forms when the projectile is at narrower angles . These larger elongated patterns may be analysed to determine the angle of impact and origin [5, 6]. The distance travelled by backspatter is reported as highly variable in the literature. For example, close gunshots to the head of live calves produced backspatter between 0-50 cm with a maximum distance of 119 cm . A case study of an atypical gunshot wound by Verhoff and Karger  involved a suicide where extensive backspatter was observed to travel up to 4.6 m. Physical experiments from shots to a bloodied sponge covered in a rigid material resulted in backspatter travelling 30-60 cm [2, 4].
The biological contents of backspatter include brain tissue, bone fragments, skin tissue, adipose tissues and blood. Factors affecting the pattern include muzzle to target distance, calibre of firearm  and anatomical location with most studies focused on the cranium.
Game, set, match, Willy Whitten.
You get awfully quiet whenever someone produces the results you demand, Paul. The least you could do is say “thank you.” 😉
Her problem is that each and every forensic pathologist who has examined the materials (including Wecht) has interpreted the “galaxy of paricles” as showing a shot from behind.
“Her problem is that each and every forensic pathologist who has examined the materials (including Wecht) has interpreted the “galaxy of paricles” as showing a shot from behind.”McAdams
The galaxy of particles appear in a stream from entry to the back of the head, the smaller formation of larger pieces are at the point of entry, the larger “dust cloud” formation is at the rear of the skull, as the material dispersed. This is not something that is contended by Fiester alone. Many of the more up to date journals and books on this subject attest to the same analyses. I have given many of her citations on this forum before, and they are continually handwaved.
If you or anyone else here wishes to dispute here findings, you are going to have to go to the source: her book and her citations. Otherwise you are making an argument from ignorance.
“The distribution of bullet fragments begins near the point of entry and continues in the direction of the bullet trajectory in an ever-widening path as it moves away from the entry wound. A lateral view of the same pattern will reveal a conical shape to the fragment distribution. The apex of the pattern is closest to the entry wound and the wider portion of the fragment cone is closest to the exit wound (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998).
The House Select Committee on Assassinations heard testimony concerning the characteristics of bullet fragment patterns when Larry Sturdivan testified the majority of metallic fragments are typically deposited nearest the entry wound (HSCA 1: 402).
Clark Panel Report also stated the majority of fragments were located in the front and top of Kennedy’s head (ARRB MD59:10-11). Multiple forensic publications indicate X-rays fragment patterns display the majority of fragments near the entry wound. Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays depict the majority of bullet fragments in the front and top of the head, which indicates a frontal shot.”~Sherry Fiester CSI
John mcadams and photon and Jean Davison- stick to your own sites….you’re vermin with one objective in mind. The overwhelming information available CLEARLY indicates this was a complex operation to murder the POTUS. Only you know why you push the agenda you do. It certainly has nothing to do with truth and justice that’s for sure and I question your moral compass. I’m sick and tired of reading your obfuscation and attacks on those bothered about why JFK was killed and by who. You get away with it because the moderators on this site think it’s one big democracy but just like 22/11/63- it’s not and sadly and wrongly you’re getting away with what you’re doing just like they did in 63 onwards. Shame on this site in the name of “democracy”. Democracy is an illusion.
Buff reads things he disagrees with. Buff loses it and gets abusive. Dog bites man. Not news.
James wants this site to be a safe space.
Just like on college campuses: a place where one is not discomfited by hearing things with which one disagrees.
“Just like on college campuses: a place where one is not discomfited by hearing things with which one disagrees.” — John McAdams
Ironic. Wasn’t a Marquette student discomfited by an instructor’s position on appropriate topics for the particular course she was teaching with which he disagreed; said student recorded and then shared that encounter with you, and you too were ‘discomfited’ because you disagreed with the instructor’s position, in fact so discomfited by ideas in contrast to your own that you blindsided the instructor online in such an egregious manner as to force the instructor to leave Marquette and for which you were eventually dismissed. Correct me if I’m wrong in my recounting the general facts of the Abatte case. What this has to do with the JFK assassination investigation will be obvious to those familiar with your tactics.
Another irony: you repeatedly charge that some here are attempting to “run you off” from this site when in fact wasn’t that precisely what you did to Ms. Abatte? I call that staring at your “shadow” professor.
I criticized her for stifling discussion of gay marriage. She left Marquette for a much better Ph.D. program (University of Colorado).
I was standing up for free expression. She was shutting it down.
Just like you buffs want to shut up people who disagree with you.
A tutorial on the Abbate case can be found here:
And from the Dean of Marquette: “Your Prior Similar Reckless and Irresponsible Acts, Together With Your Taking Pride from the Impacts of Your Current Conduct, Preclude the Lesser Sanctions of Reprimand or Suspension . . . You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts . . . ”
It could be argued that you are entitled to your Rashomon experience as you recall the Abbate episode, but having studied the events and having interacted with you on this site, I align with a statement made by one of your peers: “McAdams strikes me as having a fast and loose relationship with truthfulness,”
(my apologies to Ms. Abbate for misspelling her name repeatedly in earlier comments.)
The New York Times has just posted their ‘most popular’ comments of the year. Listed as #3:
Gfagan from Pennsylvania
re: Church Massacre Suspect Held as Charleston Grieves
“I am Irish. For many years in my native land the Rev. Ian Paisley spouted bigoted hatred about Catholics in Northern Ireland, but then claimed innocence when some militant sectarian group massacred Catholics. Speech was not murder, he said. He would never condone killing, he said. Then he went right back to feeding the attitudes that spawned the killing. Few were fooled.
We should not be fooled in America today.”
An analysis of the case, by the nation’s top academic freedom organization, is found here:
It really is rather revealing that you want me fired because I disagree with you about the JFK assassination.
But not surprising that somebody who wants people critical of JFK conspiracy theories shut up, also wants politically incorrect voices on campus shut up.
It’s nasty authoritarianism.
Some of the commenters supporting this site’s attempt to give you, me, Leslie, Jean, Photon, and Willie, et al, an opportunity to comment on JFK Assassination details also object to your role in events that resulted in Ms. Abbate becoming the issue because it seemed you were and are advocating for the comfort and protection of at least one individual attempting to deliver what is of no value and is akin to hate speech and the right to discriminate (harass) based solely on sexual orientation or identity. Ms. Abbate claimed she told the student who recorded their conversation that he did not have a privilege to make widely discredited claims related to pseudo science driven by religious beliefs on the manufactured (no scientific basis) issue of the influence of sexual orientation on parenting, in her class.:
You do not accept global warming despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community but you go all in, to the point of putting your post retirement career and your reputation on the line, over the right to deliver this “material” in another instructor’s classroom.:
I’ve tried to keep this thread on topic by not approving comments related to this controversy, and instead confining it to what has appeared in the thread. So, you are making blanket judgements that are not general or predictable, and you are not seeing all of the off topic comments addressed to you on this site.
Well good for you in killing off-topic ad hominem comments.
I usually respond to such comments when I see them. So if none appear, I’ll have no reason to respond, and the board will be much cleaner.
So you think people should be forbidden to oppose gay marriage. You think it is “hate speech” that should be forbidden.
How many things do you believe that somebody else might consider “hate speech” that should be shut up?
You are giving yourself away was a leftist authoritarian.
People have a right to debate what science shows. There is quite typically a legitimate debate on these issues.
Your claiming that “the debate is over” and opinions you disagree with should be silenced is quite intolerant.
Gay parenting, like global warming, is an issue people have a right to debate.
“Gay parenting, like global warming, is an issue people have a right to debate.”
Negro, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Southern Baptist, male, democrat parenting, like global warming, is an issue people have a right
to debate. Apparently not in Ms. Abbate’s classroom, using discredited, pseudo scientific arguments. I thought
faculty members AND grad student interns were expected to be role models.
But what are “discredited pseudo scientific arguments” is a subject that should be debated.
Not everybody agrees with you on what arguments are “discredited.”
As for being “role models:” faculty should be role models in encouraging debate and discussion on important issues. Not imposing a narrow orthodoxy.
How would you feel if, at a Catholic university, some professor said that supporting gay parenting was not allowed?
Of course, some have blamed recent deadly attacks on cops on the anti-cop rhetoric of Black Lives Matter. I suppose that movement is “feeding the attitudes that spawned the killing,” right?
Thank you James for that perfect example of CT response to facts-insults. By the way the correct term is not vermin-it is Gopher. Ski-U-Mah.
To the point-by calling for censorship you have proven that you can’t handle the truth-or even come up with a credible alternative.
“Thank you James for that perfect example of CT response to facts-insults.”~Photon
Baloney Photon, considering all of the so-called “CT” on this forum it is a ‘rare example’, but one you are ready to leap upon with your characteristic vim and vigor.
James, while I have little patience for the reflexive naysaying and find it hard to believe that anybody would spend so many hours trying to rebut blog posts/comments without an ulterior motive or compensation, by saying they shouldn’t be allowed to post you are playing into their hands. Now they will forever claim to be martyrs, which is a shame coming from an anonymous person who claims expertise in every field known to mankind or another who was fired from his job for his ill treatment of a woman a fraction of his age.
Best to think of them as annoyances you can’t do much about and try to focus on the information and analysis.
The “ill-treatment” was exposing her ill treatment of an undergraduate, stifling discussion of gay marriage by saying it would be “homophobic” and would “offend” any gays in the class.
But side with the intolerant politically correct crowd, if you want.
“…Bill; snipers base everything upon their frag orders/op orders, etc. ingress and egress are all important for “the team to accomplish the mission.” In this case, “the mission’ was one of, if not, the most, overtly powerful and high profile men in the free world…the president of the U.S.! With all due respect, anyone who has participated in any type of “high speed” clandestine, or military operation; like: “snatch and grabs” or”?”, knows there is a high probability for mistakes as well as improvisation or “flexibility”…in the event of the “whatever …” clause.
the yellow paint on the curbs, would obviously be for the snipers to be able to “time’ or sync their shots somewhat together…much like, if not exactly, like a firing squad! Next time you see a military funeral, watch the firing squad detail. Observe the detail as the commands are receited. “Ready, rack, aim, cut…” Blam! Now, close your eyes for the next volley…and tell yourself how many shots you heard? Sounds like one shot, but it was seven, all perfectly synchronized!
I mean, “what if” the teams all lost their commo? They’d have to have runners or alternate means of communication, perhaps”men waving their arms,” or “pumping an umbrella?”
“What if” one team was unable to get into their position due to police or spectators? there had to be alternate teams, or “hides” for them to use, etc. etc.
there is also another operational scenario: ‘What if” the single shooter frame wasn’t or, could in no way work? Who would have been “made” the most likely accomplice? these men- domestic professionals all, had to work together like a well oiled machine? where did they practice? Mexico?
Oops! I’m getting off of the trodden path aren’t I?
Well…regardless..the “best shot” would undoubtedly be what’s known, as a “no reflex kill.” This requires that the round be placed through the nape of the neck above the hairline, through the medulla, thus causing the principal or target to die instantly(when done correctly) without reflex, thus preventing, or reducing the protectors or handlers from determining the direction of the shot! In the “autopsy photos,” one can see a white “chip” or “spot” or matter of some kind at the base of the subjects neck. Was this a piece or residual from a small caliber wound at the rear of the head, just inside the hair?
Too damned bad we’ll never know, because these guys basically took a few pictures, trying hard “not” to show anything; essentially, just looked at the guy with the big hole in his head saying, “cause of death …gunshot to head!” No foolin’! Gosh, we’dv’e never figured that out!”-DM
“…James, you want to know something? the Vietnam conflict could’ve been won very simply, quickly, and easily had those fighting it at the command level wanted to win it.
This very same tactic could accomplish what you propose with regard to the aforementioned people…Get on their web sites and destroy them!
had U.S./Allied troops simply invaded the North, the war in the South would have ceased, and that would’ve been that!”-DM
“the Vietnam conflict could’ve been won very simply, quickly, and easily had those fighting it at the command level wanted to win it.” ~D. E. Mitchell
This is an interesting concept that Mr Mitchell proposes.
So just what does “Win” mean in this context? What would the US had won? Is there no moral and ethical cost to this ‘victory’.
Ans this is asked on the given assumption that such victory was actually possible as proposed by Mr Mitchell. Very likely conventional armaments would not have succeeded.
It is very likely that the conflict would have spread to war between the Soviets and Amerika, first by proxy, but eventually by direct nuclear confrontation.
And this is precisely what Kennedy was pointing out and arguing against, the unthinking ‘victory at any cost’ mentality that hasn’t even considered what “victory” would be defined as.
What is “Victory” then? Is it simply “vanquishing” one’s foe? Is it total annihilation of the enemy? Or simply total dominance of one’s enemy?
Is it “victory” to win at the cost of becoming a mirror analog of that which is considered despicable?
Would blowing up the planet be “victory” in that Strangelovian way?
“When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009).
The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries.
The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10).
Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”
~Sherry Fiester CSI
So now Dr. Fiester’s is now a Radiologist, too? Since she thinks that an x-ray tech is an expert on interpreting skull films I wonder how you can take her seriously.
Did Custer have any health-related employment after leaving the Navy?
Fiester is simply presenting testimony taken by the Assassinations Records Review Board. Take it up with them as to why they would depose Mr Custer.
“This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10).”
By referring to Custer’s x-Ray interpretation she is implying that he was competent to read skull films and that his perception was on the same level as the physicians in the room.
Are you claiming to be a radiologist Photon?
No Willy, I am not.
But I did do an externship in Radiology at the Mayo Clinic.
What is your experience?
By conferring to Custer’s x-Ray interpretation, the Assassinations Records Review Board is implying that he was competent to read skull films and that his perception was on the same level as the physicians in the room.
I thought that the ARRB was in the business of taking testimony-often from people with no direct connection with the assassination-not evaluating the veracity of that testimony.
Fiester made mention of Custer’s interpretation because she thought that he was an expert-revealing that she had no idea what the duties of an x-ray tech actually were.
Back into the quagmire that is the medical “evidence”. More confusion, these three photos show the same thing as the other three taken at the same time. Big surprise. I don’t remember ever reading about Kellerman exposing film, that is intriguing. Nor have I read of pictures of the crowd observing. Those would be interesting. Any cigar smoke wafting through the gallery, or a picture of LeMay chomping a cigar? “McLelland and many others were mistaken.” Virtually every American of age at the time (except maybe GHWB and Nixon) remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard about the assassination. How can one think the impressions of seeing the president’s wounds were not indelibly imprinted on their minds? FBI agent Sibert, 3 feet away during the autopsy remembers seeing nothing like the photographs. The possibility of pre-autopsy surgery, mentioned by Humes at the start of it. Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.
The photo entitled “Right Superior Profile” shows a rather large blowout in the back right of the head just like the Parkland doctors described, does it not? The picture shows a smaller wound around the right temple.
It also seems like if there were an entrance wound at the top rear of the head, the scalp flap would hang from the bottom rear of the head rather than the top rear. What caused the scalp to detach from the bottom of the back of the head if the entrance wound was at the top of the back of the head?
In reality, the Parkland doctors were rather vague, and gave different accounts.
But the standard conspiracy book account of their testimony is that occipital bone was blown out. The Right Superior Profile does not rule this out, but it does show a massive wound in right parietal bone. Given that it is mostly behind the ears, calling it “back” would be fair enough.
Who’s reality, John? Yours? My reality, and many others’ as well as the realities of the people who went to school to become doctors, nurses, and technicians like the Parkland personnel on 11/22, saw what they saw and they had absolutely no reason at all to lie about it. Unlike the autopsy folks and others who had to sign a “be quiet or you’ll be court martialed” release.
I, and many others, choose to believe that what the Parkland personnel saw with their own eyes to be accurate – a massive blow out in the right rear of the head.
Ironically, the rear head photo on your site has the caption “Scalp Manually Returned to Original Position.” Of course it does because when the scalp is peeled away it reveals the rear exit wound with beveling as described in the 1/26/67 re-inspection of the autopsy photos: “…characteristic of a wound of exit.”
Pat Speers’s excellent video is here for further clarification:
Wow, so Beverly Oliver was in Parkland examining the President?
Ed Hoffman somehow was in the ER, too? What about the Bethesda personnel who are pictured-they don’t seem to have any problem telling their stories. Of course none of them were actually as close to the body as CTers assume they were.
The fact is that aside from Jenkins and Clark none of the Parkland doctors had a close accurate view of the head wound-the true nature of which was obscured by clotted blood and matted hair. The proof of that is that the resuscitative efforts that transpired never would have happened if the ER staff were truly aware of the nature of the wound. They only became ware after they had begun preparations to ” crack the chest” when Jenkins finally noted the true severity of the wound-after which resuscitative efforts were immediately stopped.
Mr. SPECTER – And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy’s condition?
Miss BOWRON – He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER – You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON – The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER – And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON – Well, it was very bad—you know.
Mr. SPECTER – How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON – I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER – Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON – No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER – Did you notice any other wound on the President’s body?
Miss BOWRON – No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER – And what action did you take at that time, if any?
Miss BOWRON – I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.
Let’s repeat Ms. Bowron’s statement for emphasis:
Miss BOWRON – I JUST SAW ONE LARGE HOLE.
The photo showing the beveling of the skull is rotated 90 degrees.
And of course, the photo panel you posted (from Groden’s book) is a highly selected group.
But the full set of autopsy photos and x-rays shows the “great defect” to be in parietal bone.
I have a question that cannot be found in the 888 pages of the Warren Omission report. I am hoping you can help me. It will require thinking outside of the WR, so I am hoping for your insight.
You often mention on this site “how many people does the CT side think were involved in the plot? One hundred? Two hundred?’
My question. How many screw-ups, or manipulations of the collected “evidence” does it take for something to be considered a complete and total sham?
Agent Kellerman, it says above, deliberately destroyed evidence. You know Hosty destroyed a supposedly threatening note from Oswald. You know the CIA was a joke in MC, (unless you count the photo of a Russian looking LHO as a home run.) You know that Humes burned not one, but TWO copies, of the autopsy notes. You know that members of the DPD ended up with copies of the famous backyard photos. You know Ruby was granted access to Parkland and the police basement. You know that the WC did not call ANY witnesses that offered testimony that did not support their conclusion—see Sibert and O’Neill. You know the FBI threw away “evidence as a matter of routine practice” from the crime of the century. Please see the chunk of concrete that the FBI said did not exist, then flew it from Dallas to Washington, then tested it, and then threw away the slides. Forget that the concrete had been patched before it was removed.
So, let me ask you again. If one hundred people were in on the assassination of JFK, how many people in the investigation of his murder tried to do their job in a competent and professional way? One? Two?
A second, and better question, I would guess. Did ANYONE in the investigation do a competent job?
Here is a quote to help you decide:
It’s the big mysteries that cause him the most trouble.
“If the president had been killed as part of a conspiracy, that needed to be known,” he says.
“The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn’t do it,” he says. “Now it’s too late to do what should have been done originally.”
Are you talking about the piece of curb from near where Tague was standing?
Most of them did, but you are immersed in the conspiracy literature, which obsesses over people who are claimed not to have.
But it was redundant evidence, given that Stringer was photographing the body. And everybody was hypersensitive about some gross artifact becoming public.
Humes ordered the sheets in which Kennedy was wrapped laundered immediately, to avoid their appearing in some roadside museum. “He didn’t want those appearing in a barn out in Kansas sometime,” according to Boswell.
And we know that doesn’t indicate any conspiracy. Had Hoover found out about it, there would have been hell to pay.
Interesting that you make that argument, since conspiracists usually claim that MEXI was part of some conspiracy, and knew exactly what they were doing.
Their confusion over what Oswald looked like proves they were not running him as an agent — nor running an impostor.
No, he burned one copy of something that he called “notes,” but faced with aggressive questioning by the ARRB, he said, in effect “notes, draft, call it what you want.”
But the best evidence of Kennedy’s wounds is the autopsy photos and x-rays. Anything in Humes notes that contradict them was simply in error.
Do you really believe there was “surgery to the head area?”
Do you really believe that a bullet penetrated the back shallowly and then fell out?
The autopsy, and the testimony of the autopsists, flawed as it was, was way better evidence than Sibert and O’Neill.
And the WC called virtually all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who were “conspiracy witnesses” (excluding people who only came forward decades later).
They called Roger Craig, Jean Hill, Sam Holland, Lee Bowers (not a conspiracy witness at all, it turned out), Arnold Rowland.
But the fundamental problem with your arguments is quite simply that, if something doesn’t go right, you see that as evidence of conspiracy, regardless of the fact that you can’t explain how it would fit any conspiracy scenario.
No, .John, in reality the Parkland docs gave remarkably consistent accounts of the wound involving the right rear, “occipital” if you will, and right side of the head, “parietal.”
Here’s what Parkland professors wrote on the day of the assassination, before anti-conspiracists confronted them:
P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.
p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue prseent with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD
p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.
p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.
p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD
P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.
Doesn’t that photo basically match this picture in other words?
The head wound in the illustration is exactly where the autopsy photo shows the head resting in the metal head support..
There is no ” back of the head ” wound visible in these photos.
“Doesn’t that photo basically match this picture in other words?”~Jason L.
No, I don’t think it does. This drawing depicts the wound much too low over all and disconnected from the trench leading from the temple. The autopsy photos clearly show a higher wound in the Occipital-Parietal.
McClellan did NOT draw this illustration. It was drawn by an artist based on a textual description.
Keep in mind, McClellan never saw the wound in a washed condition without all of the brain matter and matted hair over it.
However the wound was certainly in the upper back of the head, and not the forehead as some interpretations claim.
No, the scalp would be torn, and the defect in underlying bone would be visible as the scalp was stretched over an open defect.
Look, I’m no doctor and I’m not interested in splitting hairs about what skull bone was hit, etc. But look at the picture entitled Right Superior Profile. The entire back right of the skull behind the ear and the brain in that area are totally missing. Now some of the missing bone is in the scalp flap, I get that. But this is a gigantic wound to the back of the head. How can that possibly be damage from an entry wound?
It’s not really an entrance wound or an exit wound.
It is the head blown open by the pressure cavity the bullet caused. I think it was Clark who said it could have been a “tangential wound.”
Here is the HSCA version of the wound:
Here is a pressure cavity:
Geez, John. Get your facts straight. A tangential wound is a contiguous wound of both entrance and exit caused by a bullet traveling at a shallow angle to the skull. The “pressure cavity”theory was drummed up to explain how a bullet entering the back of the head and exiting the front of the head could leave a huge exit at the top of the head. The exit, in such instance, is not contiguous with the entrance, and is at its greatest dimension inches away from the exit.
You may be right about that, but Kemp Clark knew where was a massive amount of damage, so what he meant by “tangential wound” must have meant a wound with an entry at one side, and and exit at the other, and penetration.
Absolutely stunning. He admits that his memory of previous perceptions of the wounds were incorrect. He admits that McClellend’s claim of where the head wound was is simply not correct. He admits that the new films completely corroborate the previous autopsy photos in the public domain. He makes no mention of his previous conclusions based on his interpretation of the x-rays.
He is making a strong case for the autopsy photos being genuine and that the eyewitness testimony of a wound to the back of the head is worthless. He is admitting that there is no case for a bullet from the front being responsible for JFK’s head wound.
If he has changed his mind, by all means give him credit for taking account of new evidence and drawing the logical conclusion.
tages of the autopsy the night of November 22, 1963. Shortly after the photos had been taken, the film was deliberately exposed to light by Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman in order to destroy them. The photographs were then deemed un-viewable.
Forget about Fiester, your experts, the HSCA, and all the other crap.
Care to tell us why Kellerman broke the law, but was never put on the stand? Remind me, again, Photon, destroying evidence in a murder is a crime, is it not?
You can take all of your “experts” and shove them in the ocean.
The whole thing is a crime.