Mortal Error Theory
Osprey
theory, the “Howard the Duck” of accommodation.
The first shot miss is capricious in that Donahue projects a
fragmentary carom off the macadam to Kennedy’s clump, where it showed
up on the autopsy x-rays as a sort of visual tie to the Mannlicher.
Donahue allots Oswald only one other shot, the CE 399 bullet so
derided as the “Magic Bullet.” He turns—and this delights the
scoffers--to the HSCA, rather than the Warren Commission, to justify
the SBT. The ricochet bullet, horribly strewn, wounds only Kennedy
(strategically in the head), missing five people in the limousine. It
deposited two sizeable remnants on the front seat and a farthing under
a jumpseat. Remarkably, and seemingly selectively, the blitzkrieg of
fragments did not damage the boot or outer sides of the Lincoln.
No doubt having something to do with Donahue’s celebrated ricocheted
skull fragment, there exists a small opening (6 x 15mm) on the rear
scalp. There is a corresponding skull opening. The pattern is
“consistent with having been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet fired
from behind and above which struck at a tangent or an angle causing a
15-millimeter cut.” (WCR 86) The problem for Donahue is that the
bullet went cleanly through the skull at impact. Conversely, a
fragmentary strike from an AR-15 would have disintegrated at the
impact site, leaving no cleancut entrance point, and a primary cluster
of fragments throughout the rear scalp with a possible secondary
cluster in the brain.
Dr. Alfred G. Oliver, of the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, conducted a
series of M-C firings into reconstructed skulls. The cranium whose
wound pattern was closest in match to that described at autopsy
likewise displayed a small entrance wound and a large exit burst. The
test skull also produced two significant bullet remnants (CE 858)
similar to the two from the Lincoln, and “a group of small lead
particles, recovered from the test bullet” similar to those seen in
the x-ray. (WCR 586)
Skull damage caused by 6.5mm:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/c0/Photo_hsca_ex_306.jpg
Among the book’s “mortal errors” is one on page 165 of the hardcover
edition. Donahue describes HSCA Exhibit F-113 (reproduced as no. 26 in
the photo section): “The gelatin simulated the human brain. The tests
were designed to mimic the President’s head wound.” In fact, when
simulating the head wound case, the WC/HSCA typically used
reconstructed skulls or imposed a “bone” (or hard tissue) bulwark at
the entrance of the gelatin block. While the gelatin does “mimic”
brain tissue (or soft tissue in general), the spoiler for Donahue is
that, in reality, a bullet to the brain must first pass through hard
tissue (in the plaza, this was thick rear skull bone).
F-113 (1 HSCA 389) was an effort by the Select Committee to show a
high-velocity M-16 (re: AR-15) round passing through soft tissue only,
becoming immediately unstable and granular, and thus theoretically
ruling it out as a potential type of bullet likely to have caused the
SBT. The problem becomes acute when Donahue uses F-113 to claim: “The
M-16 bullet, however, tumbled, disintegrated, and gouged a huge,
gaping portion from the gelatin, leaving tiny fragments near the front
of the block in a carbon copy of the wound Kennedy suffered.” On the
latter (the brain wound), Donahue is delusional.
“No explanation,” writer Menninger adds, “was offered at the committee
hearings for why the Carcano bullet failed to replicate the
President’s head wound …” (F-116—no. 27 in Donahue’s photo section—was
among several exhibits, including the pivotal F-113, introduced by
Larry Sturdivan in a section of HSCA Volume I clearing addressing the
SBT issues.) “… why the M-16 bullet did, or for that matter, why an
M-16 round was tested at all.” (We’re back to F-113, which
demonstrated how a high-velocity fragmentary round became unstable in
soft tissue, and thus could not account for the SBT as the more stable
6.5mm could.)
Mr. Donahue firmly believed F-113 represented the effect of an AR-15
round to the President’s brain. He arrantly thought so much of it as
to feature in the book’s photo section. Donahue evidently failed to
note the fatal absence of a proxy for the dense rear skull covering
that Agent Hickey’s AR-15 projectile had to surmount. A grievous
mortal error adopted by his hungry apologists.
The brain drawing by Ms. Ida Dox shows a back-to-front missle channel,
not the explosive devastation of a fragmentary or explosive bullet.
Dr. Seaman, chairman of Radiology at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in
NYC, analyzed the skull x-rays for the HSCA. He wrote: “pieces of
metal were strewn in a track-like manner” through the brain. (HSCA
F-35) Sturdivan determined: “So, this case is typical of a deforming
jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes … [the
fragments] do not move very far from their initial, from the place
where they departed the bullet.” (1 HSCA 401)
Dox brain drawing:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/72/Photo_hsca_ex_302.jpg
Donahue is equally mushy in his Hansel and Gretel skewering of the
HSCA trajectory analysis of the head shot. Based solely on his own
empirical conning of the Zapruder film, Donahue moves Kennedy, at
Z312, more to the car rail and straightens up the profile. This has
the titillating effect of redirecting Oswald’s outshoot to an unbroken
area of the front skull. There is no mention in “Mortal Error” of the
Muchmore film, a crucial caveat to the President’s body position
towards the car’s midline and the leftward tilt of the head. The
scatheful “Warren Report” (Exhibit 902, p. 108) used all the movie
film stills then available to triangulate the head position.
Near the midpoint of “Mortal Error”, Menninger devotes five pages
(199-202) to “one of the most sophisticated ballistic investigations
yet of the Kennedy assassination.” John K. Lattimer’s 1980 book
“Kennedy and Lincoln” concluded JFK would have died just from the neck
transit wound; Donahue also seems to believe in the absurd Thorburn’s
Position contention. In fact Donahue “confirmed” all when he studied a
copy of HSCA F-30 (reproduced as no. 31 in the photo section) and saw
the T1 “displaced in three directions,” contrary to the HSCA thinking
there was a displaced fracture. Donahue was further taken with
Lattimer’s demonstration of the neuromuscular reflex to explain the
head snap.
Lattimer’s book, though, is “flawed in the aggregate” according to
Menninger. Perhaps it’s because of the “sophisticated ballistics” in
the Lattimer book that Donahue avoided. On page 219 of “Kennedy and
Lincoln”, Lattimer experimentally reproduced through test firing the
separation of lead and jacket as shown in the two large fragments from
the Lincoln front seat and the 1964 Oliver replication. Lattimer also
notes that the bullet fired at Walker had been mushroomed and that
Walker had found tiny metal particles in his right forearm.
Agent Hickey did not rise up with the AR-15 until well after the last
shot. The films show the Lincoln accelerando some seconds after the
fatal shot, giving Agent Hill a hot shoe. At that time, the Secret
Service car is lagging behind in the Nix film; Kinney still has not
accelerated. If Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, accelerated
before the head shot, he would have rammed the Lincoln, which was
decelerating (though not stopping). If Kinney “stepped on the gas”
after the fatal shot, as he said he did, he could not contribute to
Hickey’s fall and “accidental shot.” But if Kinney accelerated when
his testimony and the evidence indicated, then the befuddled Holland
ex post facto had a rather nice view of the tumble astern.
Hugh Betzner, the young man with the old Kodak featured in the Nov.
24, 1967 issue of “Life”, seems to offer a valid sequence. He saw the
head impact, then a “flash of pink, like someone standing up” (ie:
Lady Camelot) and thereafter the agent with the rifle.
To date, the internet postings of the Bronson film seem to lack the
fidelity necessary to adjudge whether Hickey was standing prior to the
fatal shot. Those who have seen the original, or a near-generation to
it, have not commented on or shopped around what would be one of the
most fantastic revisionary finds of the previous century. Gary Mack
has seen the original film and is today trusted custodian of it at the
Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. He has vouched the Bronson film sequence
shot on Elm does not show Hickey raising himself up in the Queen Mary.
Here is a graphic that hopefully conveys this:
http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
Critics, like Groden, White and Fetzner, are not promoting the Donahue
whimsy because the Bronson film precludes it. Having a stench even the
most artful of dodgers won’t touch is the surest signal the Donahue
theory is a farce. Along with withered theories from Joesten,
Weisberg, Cutler, MacDonald and the alterationists, it belongs in the
dustbin of history.
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:c022cbc9-f9d3-40e0...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've engaged in a great deal of effort simply to bait me into an
intemperate response, and I'm not going to reward you sufficiently for the
effort.
Ballistics are fair game -- or they would be fair game, if you were talking
about them. But you're not really discussing ballistics. You're talking
about personalities, but you're disguising your conversation about
personalities as a conversation about ballistics.
Suffice to say that reference to the Bronson film -- to my mind -- denotes a
lack of intellectual rigor. It's like saying that you discovered the truth
about the issue at hand in your tea leaves or in your daily horoscope.
So even if your conversation really was an expert opinion about ballistics,
I wouldn't be inclined to put much stock in it.
I'll just give you one chance. I defy you -- I defy ANYONE -- to tell me
what exactly you see (and WHERE exactly you see it) in this foggy,
out-of-focus bowl of pea-green soup that shows the operative sequence from a
great distance (and with bystanders in the way) for a period of about two
seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG7IIMuBrkc&feature=related
--
"Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores, mox daturos progenium
vitiosiorem" ("Our parents, viler than our grandparents, begot us who are
even viler, and we shall bring forth a progeny more degenerate still") -
Horace, Odes, III, 6
John Canal
Osprey says...
<TOP POST that's partially OT>
I didn't read it word for word, but your post shows you're familiar with the
medical evidence which makes me curious about your take on whether you think
there was a BOH wound and whether you think the autopsy doctors grossly (by
about 4") misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's
head?
BTW, Donahue's "Final Breakthrough" evidence [his chapter 15] for the head shot
being fired by SSA Hickey was that the Warren Report stated the entry hole in
the skull was only 6.0 mm. The report explained that the reason the hole was
smaller than 6.5 mm, was because of the elasticity of the skull. Of course,
Donahue knew right away that elasticity claim was B/S...and that the 6.0 mm
hole, as stated in the WR, pretty much proved his theory.
Unfortunately, for Donahue, the writers of the WR erred. They cited Humes' WC
testimony for the 6.0 mm diameter measurement of the skull hole, but Humes
stated in his WC testimony that the diameter of the hole was from 6.0 to 7.0 mm
(I'm going from memory)...adding that elasticity of the skull was, of course,
nil.
The bottom line is that Donahue trusted the accuracy of the WR. Hind sight is
20-20 and all that, but, IMO, for evidence that critical to his theory, he
should have double-checked the report's source.
John Canal
>There are a myriad of sane, sensible reasons to reject the Donahue
>theory, the =93Howard the Duck=94 of accommodation.
>
>The first shot miss is capricious in that Donahue projects a
>fragmentary carom off the macadam to Kennedy=92s clump, where it showed
>up on the autopsy x-rays as a sort of visual tie to the Mannlicher.
>Donahue allots Oswald only one other shot, the CE 399 bullet so
>derided as the =93Magic Bullet.=94 He turns=97and this delights the
>scoffers--to the HSCA, rather than the Warren Commission, to justify
>the SBT. The ricochet bullet, horribly strewn, wounds only Kennedy
>(strategically in the head), missing five people in the limousine. It
>deposited two sizeable remnants on the front seat and a farthing under
>a jumpseat. Remarkably, and seemingly selectively, the blitzkrieg of
>fragments did not damage the boot or outer sides of the Lincoln.
>
>No doubt having something to do with Donahue=92s celebrated ricocheted
>skull fragment, there exists a small opening (6 x 15mm) on the rear
>scalp. There is a corresponding skull opening. The pattern is
>=93consistent with having been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet fired
>from behind and above which struck at a tangent or an angle causing a
>15-millimeter cut.=94 (WCR 86) The problem for Donahue is that the
>bullet went cleanly through the skull at impact. Conversely, a
>fragmentary strike from an AR-15 would have disintegrated at the
>impact site, leaving no cleancut entrance point, and a primary cluster
>of fragments throughout the rear scalp with a possible secondary
>cluster in the brain.
>
>Dr. Alfred G. Oliver, of the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, conducted a
>series of M-C firings into reconstructed skulls. The cranium whose
>wound pattern was closest in match to that described at autopsy
>likewise displayed a small entrance wound and a large exit burst. The
>test skull also produced two significant bullet remnants (CE 858)
>similar to the two from the Lincoln, and =93a group of small lead
>particles, recovered from the test bullet=94 similar to those seen in
>the x-ray. (WCR 586)
>
>Skull damage caused by 6.5mm:
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/c0/Photo_hsca_ex_306.jpg
>
>Among the book=92s =93mortal errors=94 is one on page 165 of the hardcover
>edition. Donahue describes HSCA Exhibit F-113 (reproduced as no. 26 in
>the photo section): =93The gelatin simulated the human brain. The tests
>were designed to mimic the President=92s head wound.=94 In fact, when
>simulating the head wound case, the WC/HSCA typically used
>reconstructed skulls or imposed a =93bone=94 (or hard tissue) bulwark at
>the entrance of the gelatin block. While the gelatin does =93mimic=94
>brain tissue (or soft tissue in general), the spoiler for Donahue is
>that, in reality, a bullet to the brain must first pass through hard
>tissue (in the plaza, this was thick rear skull bone).
>
>F-113 (1 HSCA 389) was an effort by the Select Committee to show a
>high-velocity M-16 (re: AR-15) round passing through soft tissue only,
>becoming immediately unstable and granular, and thus theoretically
>ruling it out as a potential type of bullet likely to have caused the
>SBT. The problem becomes acute when Donahue uses F-113 to claim: =93The
>M-16 bullet, however, tumbled, disintegrated, and gouged a huge,
>gaping portion from the gelatin, leaving tiny fragments near the front
>of the block in a carbon copy of the wound Kennedy suffered.=94 On the
>latter (the brain wound), Donahue is delusional.
>
>=93No explanation,=94 writer Menninger adds, =93was offered at the committe=
>e
>hearings for why the Carcano bullet failed to replicate the
>President=92s head wound =85=94 (F-116=97no. 27 in Donahue=92s photo sectio=
>n=97was
>among several exhibits, including the pivotal F-113, introduced by
>Larry Sturdivan in a section of HSCA Volume I clearing addressing the
>SBT issues.) =93=85 why the M-16 bullet did, or for that matter, why an
>M-16 round was tested at all.=94 (We=92re back to F-113, which
>demonstrated how a high-velocity fragmentary round became unstable in
>soft tissue, and thus could not account for the SBT as the more stable
>6.5mm could.)
>
>Mr. Donahue firmly believed F-113 represented the effect of an AR-15
>round to the President=92s brain. He arrantly thought so much of it as
>to feature in the book=92s photo section. Donahue evidently failed to
>note the fatal absence of a proxy for the dense rear skull covering
>that Agent Hickey=92s AR-15 projectile had to surmount. A grievous
>mortal error adopted by his hungry apologists.
>
>The brain drawing by Ms. Ida Dox shows a back-to-front missle channel,
>not the explosive devastation of a fragmentary or explosive bullet.
>Dr. Seaman, chairman of Radiology at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in
>NYC, analyzed the skull x-rays for the HSCA. He wrote: =93pieces of
>metal were strewn in a track-like manner=94 through the brain. (HSCA
>F-35) Sturdivan determined: =93So, this case is typical of a deforming
>jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes =85 [the
>fragments] do not move very far from their initial, from the place
>where they departed the bullet.=94 (1 HSCA 401)
>
>Dox brain drawing:
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/72/Photo_hsca_ex_302.jpg
>
>Donahue is equally mushy in his Hansel and Gretel skewering of the
>HSCA trajectory analysis of the head shot. Based solely on his own
>empirical conning of the Zapruder film, Donahue moves Kennedy, at
>Z312, more to the car rail and straightens up the profile. This has
>the titillating effect of redirecting Oswald=92s outshoot to an unbroken
>area of the front skull. There is no mention in =93Mortal Error=94 of the
>Muchmore film, a crucial caveat to the President=92s body position
>towards the car=92s midline and the leftward tilt of the head. The
>scatheful =93Warren Report=94 (Exhibit 902, p. 108) used all the movie
>film stills then available to triangulate the head position.
>
>Near the midpoint of =93Mortal Error=94, Menninger devotes five pages
>(199-202) to =93one of the most sophisticated ballistic investigations
>yet of the Kennedy assassination.=94 John K. Lattimer=92s 1980 book
>=93Kennedy and Lincoln=94 concluded JFK would have died just from the neck
>transit wound; Donahue also seems to believe in the absurd Thorburn=92s
>Position contention. In fact Donahue =93confirmed=94 all when he studied a
>copy of HSCA F-30 (reproduced as no. 31 in the photo section) and saw
>the T1 =93displaced in three directions,=94 contrary to the HSCA thinking
>there was a displaced fracture. Donahue was further taken with
>Lattimer=92s demonstration of the neuromuscular reflex to explain the
>head snap.
>
>Lattimer=92s book, though, is =93flawed in the aggregate=94 according to
>Menninger. Perhaps it=92s because of the =93sophisticated ballistics=94 in
>the Lattimer book that Donahue avoided. On page 219 of =93Kennedy and
>Lincoln=94, Lattimer experimentally reproduced through test firing the
>separation of lead and jacket as shown in the two large fragments from
>the Lincoln front seat and the 1964 Oliver replication. Lattimer also
>notes that the bullet fired at Walker had been mushroomed and that
>Walker had found tiny metal particles in his right forearm.
>
>Agent Hickey did not rise up with the AR-15 until well after the last
>shot. The films show the Lincoln accelerando some seconds after the
>fatal shot, giving Agent Hill a hot shoe. At that time, the Secret
>Service car is lagging behind in the Nix film; Kinney still has not
>accelerated. If Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, accelerated
>before the head shot, he would have rammed the Lincoln, which was
>decelerating (though not stopping). If Kinney =93stepped on the gas=94
>after the fatal shot, as he said he did, he could not contribute to
>Hickey=92s fall and =93accidental shot.=94 But if Kinney accelerated when
>his testimony and the evidence indicated, then the befuddled Holland
>ex post facto had a rather nice view of the tumble astern.
>
>Hugh Betzner, the young man with the old Kodak featured in the Nov.
>24, 1967 issue of =93Life=94, seems to offer a valid sequence. He saw the
>head impact, then a =93flash of pink, like someone standing up=94 (ie:
>Lady Camelot) and thereafter the agent with the rifle.
>
>To date, the internet postings of the Bronson film seem to lack the
>fidelity necessary to adjudge whether Hickey was standing prior to the
>fatal shot. Those who have seen the original, or a near-generation to
>it, have not commented on or shopped around what would be one of the
>most fantastic revisionary finds of the previous century. Gary Mack
>has seen the original film and is today trusted custodian of it at the
>Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. He has vouched the Bronson film sequence
>shot on Elm does not show Hickey raising himself up in the Queen Mary.
>Here is a graphic that hopefully conveys this:
>
>http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
>
>Critics, like Groden, White and Fetzner, are not promoting the Donahue
>whimsy because the Bronson film precludes it. Having a stench even the
>most artful of dodgers won=92t touch is the surest signal the Donahue
Martin Shackelford
the
AR-15 would have required a shot through the windshield of the follow-up
car. Donahue responded to this by arguing that the films weren't clear
enough
to allow precision--but precision isn't required--only a good enough image
to
determine whether the agent was standing on the floor of the car (where he
was)
or the seat (where he would have had to be to "accidentally" hit JFK). If he
had
raised the AR-15 up higher, that too would have been visible in films and
photos.
It didn't happen.
Martin
"Osprey" <ospr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c022cbc9-f9d3-40e0...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
>
>Donahue's theory fails the trajectory test.
Be careful, Martin....you are treading in dangerous waters when you mention the
"T" word [trajectory]. Indeed, the Baden Brotherhod of Cowlick Entry Theorists,
to include our esteemed host, Dr. McAdams, to the best of my knowledge, does not
accept any "trajectory" evidence....and all you have to do figure out why is to
look at the Dox drawing that shows the exiting bullet [large fragments] heading
down in the general direction of where JBC was seated. Worse yet, if you extend
Baden's straight line trajectory back, according to D. Myers, it points about
124' above the roofline of the Dal-Tex Building.
Fiorentino offers the funniest reason why he thinks trajectory tests shouldn't
count--he says (something like) the skull was shattered so much no meaningful
trajectory could have been determined. Too bad he didn't tell that to Canning
and Baden. LOL!
McAdams is smart enough to stay away from the trajectory discussions. DVP,
interestingly, evidently agrees Baden's trajectory is seriously flawed [Myers
is correct], but then leaves it at that.
No, Martin, trajectory evidence is not to be put on the table....play fair!
John Canal
tomnln
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h08dm...@drn.newsguy.com...
Gerry Simone
So trajectory evidence, generally speaking, can only be reliable if the
trajectories can be tested in a crime scene that is controlled by CSI's
using precise equipment (like lasers) to connect two known points of
criminal evidence.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h0908...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>derided as the "Magic Bullet." He turns-and this delights the
>>President's head wound ." (F-116-no. 27 in Donahue's photo section-was
>>among several exhibits, including the pivotal F-113, introduced by
>>Larry Sturdivan in a section of HSCA Volume I clearing addressing the
>>SBT issues.) ". why the M-16 bullet did, or for that matter, why an
>>M-16 round was tested at all." (We're back to F-113, which
>>demonstrated how a high-velocity fragmentary round became unstable in
>>soft tissue, and thus could not account for the SBT as the more stable
>>6.5mm could.)
>>
>>Mr. Donahue firmly believed F-113 represented the effect of an AR-15
>>round to the President's brain. He arrantly thought so much of it as
>>to feature in the book's photo section. Donahue evidently failed to
>>note the fatal absence of a proxy for the dense rear skull covering
>>that Agent Hickey's AR-15 projectile had to surmount. A grievous
>>mortal error adopted by his hungry apologists.
>>
>>The brain drawing by Ms. Ida Dox shows a back-to-front missle channel,
>>not the explosive devastation of a fragmentary or explosive bullet.
>>Dr. Seaman, chairman of Radiology at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in
>>NYC, analyzed the skull x-rays for the HSCA. He wrote: "pieces of
>>metal were strewn in a track-like manner" through the brain. (HSCA
>>F-35) Sturdivan determined: "So, this case is typical of a deforming
>>jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes . [the
Grizzlie Antagonist
> In article <c022cbc9-f9d3-40e0-86f8-4d00f249c...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> Osprey says...
>
> <TOP POST that's partially OT>
>
> I didn't read it word for word, but your post shows you're familiar with the
> medical evidence which makes me curious about your take on whether you think
> there was a BOH wound and whether you think the autopsy doctors grossly (by
> about 4") misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's
> head?
>
> BTW, Donahue's "Final Breakthrough" evidence [his chapter 15] for the head shot
> being fired by SSA Hickey was that the Warren Report stated the entry hole in
> the skull was only 6.0 mm. The report explained that the reason the hole was
> smaller than 6.5 mm, was because of the elasticity of the skull. Of course,
> Donahue knew right away that elasticity claim was B/S...and that the 6.0 mm
> hole, as stated in the WR, pretty much proved his theory.
>
> Unfortunately, for Donahue, the writers of the WR erred. They cited Humes' WC
> testimony for the 6.0 mm diameter measurement of the skull hole, but Humes
> stated in his WC testimony that the diameter of the hole was from 6.0 to 7.0 mm
> (I'm going from memory)...adding that elasticity of the skull was, of course,
> nil.
>
> The bottom line is that Donahue trusted the accuracy of the WR. Hind sight is
> 20-20 and all that, but, IMO, for evidence that critical to his theory, he
> should have double-checked the report's source.
>
> John Canal
Very good, John Canal.
I've banished the piece that you responded to to the "dustbin of history",
but your contribution was worthwhile.
Humes's WC testimony, taken in conjunction with the autopsy report signed
by Humes, Boswell, and Finck, simply adds to the confusion that fueled --
and still fuels -- the legitimate skepticism on which the Mortal Error
scenario is based.
The autopsy report -- Commission Exhibit 387 -- states, "Situated in the
posterior scalp approximately 2. 5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly
above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring
15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the
skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from
the inner aspect of the skull."
The reference to "corresponding wound" through the skull suggests that
the wound in the skull might also measure 15 X 6mm, but as
Donahue/Menninger notes, the language is "maddeningly imprecise" on a
topic in which it needs to be precise.
Donahue states that the skin tissue over the scalp might shrink to less
than the size of the missile that entered it due to "elastic recoil", but
that the bone underneath the skin tissue -- the skull -- will not. In
other words, the diameter of the wound through BONE -- as opposed to skin
tissue -- will always be a little greater than that of the missile which
enters it. The bone has no "elastic recoil".
As you say, this is precisely what Humes told the WC.
Hence, a wound through the skull over 6.5 millimeters in diameter is
consistent with a 6.5 mm MC round. A wound 6.5 millimeters in diameter or
less is inconsistent with a 6.5 mm MC round.
So -- the $64 question -- what was the diameter of the wound through the
skull here?
The autopsy report doesn't expressly say. It's "maddeningly imprecise".
Again, it refers to a "lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm" in the scalp
-- that is, in the skin tissue over the skull -- and it refers merely to a
"corresponding wound" in the underlying bone.
And what did Humes tell the WC that the diameter measurement of the skull
hole was?
Again, as you say, he testified that it was between 6.0 and 7.0 mm.
You seem to feel as though this settles the issue. But given that the
issue is whether the skull hole was large enough to accommodate a 6.5 mm
diameter missile, I'd call that description "maddeningly imprecise".
Wouldn't you?
Anthony Marsh
> So trajectory evidence, generally speaking, can only be reliable if the
> trajectories can be tested in a crime scene that is controlled by CSI's
> using precise equipment (like lasers) to connect two known points of
> criminal evidence.
>
No, real forensic pathologists like Dr. Henry Lee study trajectories and
do not always use lasers. Study some of his cases.
John Canal
>
>You seem to feel as though this settles the issue. But given that the
>issue is whether the skull hole was large enough to accommodate a 6.5 mm
>diameter missile, I'd call that description "maddeningly imprecise".
>Wouldn't you?
Sure, and that measurement (diameter of the entry in the skull)should have been
included in the report....not just mentioned in Humes' WC testimony as some kind
of an afterthought.
But, in all fairness, it wouldn't have been all that easy for them to measure
the skull hole. Indeed, when they reflected the scalp to get a look at it [the
entry in the skull], pieces of skull came out or stuck to the scalp....with the
top portion of the entry in one of those pieces that came out. In fact, Boswell
drew that piece on his diagram.
In any case, they would have had to replace that piece to measure the
diameter...pretty much a two-person job. Boswell's comments to the HSCA years
later indicates they did fit that loose piece (with the top portion of the
entry) onto the intact skull with the remainder--bottom portion--of the entry,
but my guess is that they screwed up and didn't actually measure it [forgot
to--or didn't bother to?].......and I think Humes just guessed at the 6.0 - 7.0
mm measurement four months after the fact.
We'll never know for sure exactly what happened....but what is that 6.0 mm about
anyway? If he did guess, what a stupid guess it was. IOW, I could buy 6.5 - 7.0
mm, but a 6.0 mm diameter hole being caused by a 6.5 mm round?--come on Humes,
get real! Like I said, they screwed up, IMO....and so did Donahue.
Osprey
> You've engaged in a great deal of effort simply
> to bait me
( He who thinks the world revolves around him.)
> into an intemperate response, and I'm not going
> to reward you sufficiently for the effort.
I knew you didn't have it in you, old sport.
> Ballistics are fair game -- or they would be fair game,
> if you were talking about them. But you're not really
> discussing ballistics. You're talking about personalities,
> but you're disguising your conversation about
> personalities as a conversation about ballistics.
“Mortal Error” is one of the twenty-or-so research manuals I keep
handy on the shelf. An attractively laid out book that assembles some
key SBT components and many SS statements, it features a tale
irresistible to assassination buffs: the quest for recognition. What
self-respecting researcher doesn’t love it on some level. To boot, it
has the most joyous hook in assassination letters: “The fatal bullet
that Oswald did not fire.”
A masculine book, Donahue’s treatise is replete with esprit de corps,
puritanic entreaties and a gently-building expose of friendly fire.
Its machine gun efficiency and ballistic curiosities appeal to older/
retired elements of law enforcement, the gunnery and hunting cultures,
with a potential fringe allure for survivalists, tax resisters and the
fox hunt set. They decree Dragnet Donahue’s authority is sacrosanct
and borders on patriotism, him being an upright member of Baltimore
colony who is chivalrous and kind to animals.
A combination of Forest Gump and Annie Oakley, the reputable gunsmith
went contentedly through life honing his craft, learning from
mistakes, and rubbing shoulders with such JFK aristocracy as Weisberg,
Davis, Guinn, and the CBS Reports firing team. The Baltimore Boone
powdered his musket and took methodical aim at the comfortable
assumptions of Warren’s entourage, Blakey’s Folly and, ultimately
plain common sense. By then an ascending hero of the cult
intelligentsia, Donahue -- catching the coattail of the “JFK”
burlesque – had his life enshrined with the attar of legend by Bonar
Menninger. The mossback knight-errant gloriously hit the big time with
St. Martin’s Press. Then a limelight made dim.
“Mortal Error” speaks of Donahue’s genuine horror at his appalling but
fair-rendered confection and his great mortal plight over how to
acquaint Hickey with the defamatory encroachment. Every accommodation
was rendered to lessen the unintended mishap that befell a loyal man-
at-arms to Camelot. It was variously a cock-up gone unnoticed, an
accident benevolently hushed, and, momentarily, a fragging that the
officer class was honor-bound to conceal in the interest of public
safety and all that. In this company, the whistle-blower must be above
reproach.
> Suffice to say that reference to the Bronson film
> -- to my mind -- denotes a lack of intellectual rigor.
( Hmmm, GA does that very thing further along.)
> It's like saying that you discovered the truth about
> the issue at hand in your tea leaves or in your daily
> horoscope.
I'll have you know I looked up from my Earl Grey last week and caught
a glimpse of a wee leprechaun on a unicorn. My horoscope today said to
teach an old dog new tricks.
> So even if your conversation really was an expert
> opinion about ballistics, I wouldn't be inclined to put
> much stock in it.
Ol' Deadeye Donahue popped corks at the debauched “Warren Report”, the
so-so Canning trajectory analysis and the increasingly-distant Secret
Service. To demonstrate how aboveboard he was – but mostly to service
his pet twist – the ancient dragonslayer probed the chastity of the
Single Bullet Theory; he was one of the few to grant consideration to
Alvarez and Lattimer. Donahue's desperate approaches to the Blakey
crowd earned a rebuff, like Harrison’s clock, Gatling’s gun and
Pickett’s Charge.
With reluctant relish, the quixotic Don revealed a rare calibre, at
least when it came to Hickey. It’s just most of his assumptions were
ill-based, detrimental and outright wrong. After the ’92 blow-back,
the Baltimore blunderbuss, it would seem, has never admitted error or
apologized – or argued for or against his challenged hypothesis. What
does that say about honor and reputation, and be a man, my son?
> I'll just give you one chance. I defy you -- I defy
> ANYONE -- to tell me what exactly you see (and
> WHERE exactly you see it) in this foggy, out-of-focus
> bowl of pea-green soup that shows the operative
> sequence from a great distance (and with bystanders
> in the way) for a period of about two seconds.
You need to wipe the murk off your telescopic sight. I'm pleading with
ya, laddie. Go here:
http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
... put on yer specs and turn on image-loading.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Why do you say that Donahue screwed up?
He had nothing to do with the original inquiry, and he had to deal with
the same information produced by the original inquiry that everyone else
does has to deal with. He had to deal with that same "stupid guess".
Maybe it WAS just a stupid guess.
Think about it. In the very same session before the WC, Humes:
1) agrees that the diameter wound of a hole in the skull must always be
bigger than that of the missile that caused it;
2) states that the wound that he examined was consistent with having been
produced by a 6.5 mm round; and
3) refuses to state outright that the diameter of the wound was greater
than 6.5 mm -- describing it instead as between 6.0 and 7.0 mm.
Donahue doesn't contend that a hole smaller than 6.5 mm could have been
caused by a 6.5 mm round; he agrees that this is impossible. The fact
that it's impossible is his point, isn't it? So why would you say that
Donahue screwed up?
John Canal
says...
Because Donahue came to the conclusion that the hole was only 6.0 mm in
diameter, based on the Warren Report. Unfortunately, the staement in the
Warren Report (that Donahue focused on) was based on Humes'
testimony....and Humes did not say the hole was 6.0 mm in diameter---he
said it was 6.0 - 7.0 mm in diameter.
When I read in the WR where it said the hole was 6.0 mm in diameter, I
couldn't believe what I was reading, so I checked the source and, sure
enough, the whoever wrote 6.0 mm for the hole's diameter in the report
screwed up. If I double checked the accuracy of the WR on that
measurement, Donahue, who had a hell of a lot more at stake than I, should
have done the same.....he didn't and, IMO, he screwed up because he
didn't.
Grizzlie Antagonist
It is, as we say in the legal profession, "harmless error". Harmless
error. As opposed to a mortal one.
The WC report said that there was a 6.0 mm wound in the scalp and a
"corresponding" one in the skull, without further elucidation. And again,
Humes testified verbally that it was between 6 and 7 mms. So again, it
has not yet been established, even by the WC's investigation that it was
greater than 6.5 mm.
Which means that the hole's diameter apparently COULD have been as low as
6.0 mm. It COULD have been. Or -- if we take Humes's testimony at face
value -- it could have been as high as 7.0 mm.
Donahue had flawed data and did the best he could to work with it. But
you are so focused on Donahue that you don't seem to realize that it's
Humes who is on the hook here.
You don't recognize the significance of Humes refusing to state that the
wound was greater than 6.5 mm -- even as he acknowledges that it HAS TO
BE, in order for the MC scenario to work.
Therefore, Donahue's critique of the MC round causing the head wound has,
at most, been grazed but hardly shattered. He's still in the game, as far
as this issue is concerned.
And this is an issue skewed in his favor because a larger wound would only
prove that an MC round strike to the head was POSSIBLE, not that it
appened -- while a smaller wound would prove that an MC round strike to
the head was IMPOSSIBLE.
Donahue's analysis is largely based on trajectory anyway. The size of the
head wound is a side issue in some respects, which may or may not prove to
be supportive of his trajectory analysis.
John Canal
You fail to let it sink in that he told his readers that he had
"breakthrough", AKA Slam Dunk, evidence that it was impossible for LHO to
have fired the fatal shot. The evidence he had, however, was anything but
slam dunk--6.0 mm IS NOT 6.0 - 7.0 mm!
Furthermore, the Warren Report was not a primary source for that so-called
evidence--Humes' testimony was. He should have used primary sources,
especially if he was using this "evidence" to accuse someone of killing
the President of the United States....even if it was by accident.
>The WC report said that there was a 6.0 mm wound in the scalp and a
>"corresponding" one in the skull, without further elucidation. And again,
>Humes testified verbally that it was between 6 and 7 mms. So again, it
>has not yet been established, even by the WC's investigation that it was
>greater than 6.5 mm.
There is a host of other evidence that debunks a shot by Hickey entering
JFK's skull.
First, Dnahue has Hickey's bullet entering the parietal lobe of JFK's
brain, but the channel like laceration began at the tip of the occipital
lobe...which, because JFK was leaning forward when he was hit would have
been several inches behind the parietal lobe. IOW, for Hickey's bullet to
enter the parieatl lobe and cause the through and through laceraton that
began at the tip of the occipital lobe, the bullet would have had to
double-back and re-enter the skull several inches lower.
The two large bullet fragments found in the front of the limo were from MC
6.5 mm ammo...not from the type of ammo loaded in Hickey's weapon.
Autopsy photographs nos. 44 and 45 show a bullet entry hole near the
EOP...and all three autopsists reported that there was only one entry to
JFK's head....obviously--and you don't have to be an attorney to figure
this out--the bullet that did enter where the photos show it did ould not
have been fired by Hickey.
Another thing, the principal exit was just forward of the coronal
suture....Donahue, with a dog-ate-my-homework excuse says that there
wouldn't have been an exit defect for the AR-15 round..because the bullet
disintegrated. Ya sure.
>Which means that the hole's diameter apparently COULD have been as low as
>6.0 mm. It COULD have been.
But that's not what Donahue had Menniger tell his readers....unless I
missed it...so I'm asking you, does it say the breakthrough evidence was
that the bullet hole "could heve been 6.0 mm"???????????
Is your alias Claviger, BTW? I ask that because I've been down this same
silly road before and the responses I got then seem eerily familiar to the
ones Im getting now.
>Or -- if we take Humes's testimony at face
>value -- it could have been as high as 7.0 mm.
It appears to me that Humes was guessing...or else he would have put the
precise diameter in the report. Humes screwed up, but, like I said before,
in all fairness to Humes, measuring the entry diameter wouldn't have been
all that easy--because there was never a complete hole to measure--the
entry was split in two and Boswell's testimony and diagram proves that.
The bottom line is that Humes screwing up is no justification for Donahue
saying the diameter being 6.0 mm was breakthrough evidence for his case
against Hickey.
>Donahue had flawed data and did the best he could to work with it.
No, you're wrong--he didn't do the best he could--he could have checked
the primary source for his breakthrough evidence...if he did, he sure as
hell wouldn't have called it that.
>But
>you are so focused on Donahue that you don't seem to realize that it's
>Humes who is on the hook here.
I said Humes screwed up, and so didn't the writers of the Warren Report
(on that issue).....but it's obvious you're not going to admit that
Donahue screwed up as well.
>You don't recognize the significance of Humes refusing to state that the
>wound was greater than 6.5 mm -- even as he acknowledges that it HAS TO
>BE, in order for the MC scenario to work.
>Therefore, Donahue's critique of the MC round causing the head wound has,
>at most, been grazed but hardly shattered. He's still in the game, as far
>as this issue is concerned.
As far as you're concerned, that is.
>And this is an issue skewed in his favor because a larger wound would only
>prove that an MC round strike to the head was POSSIBLE, not that it
>appened -- while a smaller wound would prove that an MC round strike to
>the head was IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>Donahue's analysis is largely based on trajectory anyway. The size of the
>head wound is a side issue in some respects, which may or may not prove to
>be supportive of his trajectory analysis.
Argue with someone else defending Donahue's case who is unfamiliar with
the medical evidence like DVP or Fiorentino or McAdams.....this exchange
is too silly for me....bye.
Anthony Marsh
Funny, that's what John Canal says about the autopsy doctors getting the
wound wrong by 4 inches. Harmless error.
And most WC defenders don't care at all because they point out that
everyone agreed that the shot came from above and behind. Somewhere.
Close enough for a WC defender.
Anthony Marsh
Which hole? The one on the autopsy face sheet says 15 x 6 mm. That is
not diameter. The 6 mm is the width of an ellipse.
Anthony Marsh
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
>
>> You've engaged in a great deal of effort simply
>> to bait me
>
> ( He who thinks the world revolves around him.)
>
>> into an intemperate response, and I'm not going
>> to reward you sufficiently for the effort.
>
> I knew you didn't have it in you, old sport.
>
>> Ballistics are fair game -- or they would be fair game,
>> if you were talking about them. But you're not really
>> discussing ballistics. You're talking about personalities,
>> but you're disguising your conversation about
>> personalities as a conversation about ballistics.
>
> handy on the shelf. An attractively laid out book that assembles some
> key SBT components and many SS statements, it features a tale
> irresistible to assassination buffs: the quest for recognition. What
> has the most joyous hook in assassination letters: �The fatal bullet
> that Oswald did not fire.�
>
I bought several copies at 50 cents each from Buck A Book, just for the
photos and illustrations. His main thesis is nonsense, but he has some
excellent photos and criticism of the HSCA.
> A masculine book, Donahue�s treatise is replete with esprit de corps,
> puritanic entreaties and a gently-building expose of friendly fire.
> Its machine gun efficiency and ballistic curiosities appeal to older/
> retired elements of law enforcement, the gunnery and hunting cultures,
> with a potential fringe allure for survivalists, tax resisters and the
> fox hunt set. They decree Dragnet Donahue�s authority is sacrosanct
> and borders on patriotism, him being an upright member of Baltimore
> colony who is chivalrous and kind to animals.
>
> A combination of Forest Gump and Annie Oakley, the reputable gunsmith
> went contentedly through life honing his craft, learning from
> mistakes, and rubbing shoulders with such JFK aristocracy as Weisberg,
> Davis, Guinn, and the CBS Reports firing team. The Baltimore Boone
> powdered his musket and took methodical aim at the comfortable
> assumptions of Warren�s entourage, Blakey�s Folly and, ultimately
> plain common sense. By then an ascending hero of the cult
> intelligentsia, Donahue -- catching the coattail of the �JFK�
> burlesque � had his life enshrined with the attar of legend by Bonar
> Menninger. The mossback knight-errant gloriously hit the big time with
> St. Martin�s Press. Then a limelight made dim.
>
> �Mortal Error� speaks of Donahue�s genuine horror at his appalling but
> fair-rendered confection and his great mortal plight over how to
> acquaint Hickey with the defamatory encroachment. Every accommodation
> was rendered to lessen the unintended mishap that befell a loyal man-
> at-arms to Camelot. It was variously a cock-up gone unnoticed, an
> accident benevolently hushed, and, momentarily, a fragging that the
> officer class was honor-bound to conceal in the interest of public
> safety and all that. In this company, the whistle-blower must be above
> reproach.
>
>> Suffice to say that reference to the Bronson film
>> -- to my mind -- denotes a lack of intellectual rigor.
>
> ( Hmmm, GA does that very thing further along.)
>
>> It's like saying that you discovered the truth about
>> the issue at hand in your tea leaves or in your daily
>> horoscope.
>
> I'll have you know I looked up from my Earl Grey last week and caught
> a glimpse of a wee leprechaun on a unicorn. My horoscope today said to
> teach an old dog new tricks.
>
>> So even if your conversation really was an expert
>> opinion about ballistics, I wouldn't be inclined to put
>> much stock in it.
>
> Ol' Deadeye Donahue popped corks at the debauched �Warren Report�, the
> so-so Canning trajectory analysis and the increasingly-distant Secret
> Service. To demonstrate how aboveboard he was � but mostly to service
> his pet twist � the ancient dragonslayer probed the chastity of the
> Single Bullet Theory; he was one of the few to grant consideration to
> Alvarez and Lattimer. Donahue's desperate approaches to the Blakey
> crowd earned a rebuff, like Harrison�s clock, Gatling�s gun and
> Pickett�s Charge.
>
> With reluctant relish, the quixotic Don revealed a rare calibre, at
> least when it came to Hickey. It�s just most of his assumptions were
> ill-based, detrimental and outright wrong. After the �92 blow-back,
> the Baltimore blunderbuss, it would seem, has never admitted error or
> apologized � or argued for or against his challenged hypothesis. What
Grizzlie Antagonist
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
> > You've engaged in a great deal of effort simply
> > to bait me
>
> ( He who thinks the world revolves around him.)
Obviously, the world DOES revolve around me since you've spared no
pains to prove it.
A sensible person like you wouldn't go to all that trouble for no
reason.
> http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
Excellent.
I have never seen the Bronson film shown so clearly.
It's still not all THAT clear. But I wouldn't have guessed that even
this level of clarity was possible.
Far from disproving the Mortal Error scenario, this frame supports
it. It doesn't PROVE that Hickey accidentally shot JFK, but it's not
inconsistent with the idea.
It unquestionably shows Hickey standing up at the right moment.
I know that your caption suggests that it doesn't. But the picture
speaks louder than your caption, and the picture clearly shows
otherwise. Hickey is standing up. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
I've heard other people say that the Bronson film shows that Hickey
wasn't standing up. But the picture speaks louder than they do, and
he clearly IS standing up. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
The picture doesn't expressly show him wielding the AR-15. There is
still not enough clarity to enable anyone to make that determination.
Not merely from looking at the photo.
But there's no reason to doubt that he was standing up and wielding
the AR-15 at the operative moment because a number of witnesses --
including a number of Secret Service agents -- affirmed that he was.
I was pretty sure that there was no film or photograph that suggested
otherwise, and there isn't. The photo shows Hickey standing up. The
witness testimony states that he was holding the AR-15, and since the
photo does show him standing up but is otherwise not clear on what he
was doing, there is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses who said
that he was holding the AR-15 at the time that he stood up.
Your caption refers to Glen Bennett. Have you bothered to read what
he said?
"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the
President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for
the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey
had already picked-up the AR-15."
Is that clear to you? IMMEDIATELY after Kennedy was struck in the
head, Bennett notices that Hickey has already picked up the AR-15.
And the Bronson photo/film is NOT inconsistent with this.
None of this -- the Bronson film or the witness testimony -- proves
that the AR-15 ever discharged in Hickey's hands. None of it proves
that the barrel was pointed in Kennedy's direction when and if it did.
But certainly the Mortal Error scenario isn't disproven by the Bronson
film and, if anything, it's been mildly strengthened by it.
It was one thing to read the witness testimony. It was another thing
to have Bonar Menninger tell me over the phone -- as he did back in
2004 -- that when he and Donahue saw the close-up film (before
publication of ME), they determined it to be inconclusive because it
simply showed Hickey standing up without showing exactly what he was
doing.
It was another thing to see this close-up myself for the first time
and to actually see that Hickey was standing up.
So I owe you a small measure of thanks. And now I dismiss you.
You're free to leave.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Mm.
> First, Dnahue has Hickey's bullet entering the parietal lobe of JFK's
> brain, but the channel like laceration began at the tip of the occipital
> lobe...which, because JFK was leaning forward when he was hit would have
> been several inches behind the parietal lobe. IOW, for Hickey's bullet to
> enter the parieatl lobe and cause the through and through laceraton that
> began at the tip of the occipital lobe, the bullet would have had to
> double-back and re-enter the skull several inches lower.
You get a little too technical there for me.
> The two large bullet fragments found in the front of the limo were from MC
> 6.5 mm ammo...not from the type of ammo loaded in Hickey's weapon.
Donahue has convinced me that those two large bullet fragments did not come
from the head shot.
> Autopsy photographs nos. 44 and 45 show a bullet entry hole near the
> EOP...and all three autopsists reported that there was only one entry to
> JFK's head....obviously--and you don't have to be an attorney to figure
> this out--the bullet that did enter where the photos show it did ould not
> have been fired by Hickey.
You get a little too technical there for me. You said that this
conversation was too "silly" for you, and if it is, you may not be reading
this.
If you are reading it, you're probably getting exasperated and think that
I'm using my ignorance of these technicalities as some sort of rhetorical
defense.
I'm not doing that. Donahue's discussion of trajectory is covered in the
body of ME, and his publisher, St. Martin's Press, has its own separate
largely supportive analysis -- though they stop short of absolutely
affirming that he was right.
I'm just a dumb lawyer, and I can't follow all that technical jargon - his
or yours. I do know that Donahue was a qualified expert witness on the
subject matter, and for all I know, you might be also. Your
qualifications might be more extensive than his were. I'm sure that
others who support the official position and others who have other
interpretations that vary from the official position are equally qualified
or more qualified.
I also know enought to know that experts frequently disagree among
themselves -- as they obviously do here -- and that this renders such data
to an art, rather than to an exact science. And that the guy who's right
isn't necessarily the guy with the most letters after his name. In the
courtroom, it all comes down to what a jury of non-experts, hopefully
using their common sense, believe.
I'm a non-expert in this subject matter, and this is what I believe.
Broken down to its simplest components, what Donahue's scenario holds is
that a gunshot wound causing severe exit injury to the right side of the
skull is more consistent with a shot originating from slightly above and
to the left than it is with a shot originating from high and to the right.
And to me, that's a good rugged common sense analysis. A good rugged
common sense analysis. Right now, I find it more persuasive than yours
however credentialed you might be.
> Another thing, the principal exit was just forward of the coronal
> suture....Donahue, with a dog-ate-my-homework excuse says that there
> wouldn't have been an exit defect for the AR-15 round..because the bullet
> disintegrated. Ya sure.
I hate it when you show off your ballistic knowledge by using overly
technical terms such as "Ya sure".
>>Which means that the hole's diameter apparently COULD have been as low as
>>6.0 mm. It COULD have been.
>
> But that's not what Donahue had Menniger tell his readers....unless I
> missed it...so I'm asking you, does it say the breakthrough evidence was
> that the bullet hole "could heve been 6.0 mm"???????????
More or less, though he also expresses his understanding that perhaps it
was not 6.0 mm. Again, he describes Humes's findings as "maddeningly
imprecise".
But I just don't understand why you think that you're deliving such a
devastating riposte. You're engaging in a largely semantical argument and
yet strutting as Macduff must be strutting when he enters the final scene
carrying Macbeth's head
OK, so it's not clear that the bullet hole was only 6.0 mm. So what
Donahue found was not a "breakthrough".
But even if the bullet hole has not been established as being as small as
6.0 mm, it's STILL significant that it has not been established to be
greater than 6.5 mm.
Donahue claims to have measured the entrance wounds on the skulls that
were used in Dr. Olivier's simulated tests and to have determined them to
have a diameter in excess of 8 millimeters.
If he's right, then even a 7.0 millimeter wound in the president's skull
might not be large enough to justify a conclusion that it came from an MC
round.
> Is your alias Claviger, BTW? I ask that because I've been down this same
> silly road before and the responses I got then seem eerily familiar to the
> ones Im getting now.
I'm not claviger, though the confusion is understandable and we would have
been basing our arguments on the same source.
I don't know what happened to claviger. He's from New York City, however,
and I am from Central California.
>>Or -- if we take Humes's testimony at face
>>value -- it could have been as high as 7.0 mm.
>
> It appears to me that Humes was guessing...or else he would have put the
> precise diameter in the report. Humes screwed up, but, like I said before,
> in all fairness to Humes, measuring the entry diameter wouldn't have been
> all that easy--because there was never a complete hole to measure--the
> entry was split in two and Boswell's testimony and diagram proves that.
> The bottom line is that Humes screwing up is no justification for Donahue
> saying the diameter being 6.0 mm was breakthrough evidence for his case
> against Hickey.
The silliness that you say is inherent in this conversation isn't coming
from my end.
You're taking Humes who had first-hand access to the information and
bungled it and comparing him favorably to Donahue who isn't guilty of
anything here other than a little over-exuberance maybe based on his
second-hand access to the same information.
And the underlying point is trivial and doesn't advance the determination
as to just how large the bullet hole was.
>>Donahue had flawed data and did the best he could to work with it.
>
> No, you're wrong--he didn't do the best he could--he could have checked
> the primary source for his breakthrough evidence...if he did, he sure as
> hell wouldn't have called it that.
Please! Whether or not he should have called it a "breakthrough" is
trivial! If you don't want to continue this discussion, fine.
If you're going to continue it, please move on from this!
It's trivial. It's a "big end" vs. "little end" argument.
>>But
>>you are so focused on Donahue that you don't seem to realize that it's
>>Humes who is on the hook here.
>
> I said Humes screwed up, and so didn't the writers of the Warren Report
> (on that issue).....but it's obvious you're not going to admit that
> Donahue screwed up as well.
Yes. Yes. He "screwed up", or maybe his publisher did. He/they took an
important piece of evidence and called it a "breakthrough" instead of
choosing his/their words more carefully. It's not germane to the main
point of how big the bullet hole really was and how big it needed to be.
It's trivial. Please find it in your heart to forgive him/them and move
on.
>>You don't recognize the significance of Humes refusing to state that the
>>wound was greater than 6.5 mm -- even as he acknowledges that it HAS TO
>>BE, in order for the MC scenario to work.
>
>>Therefore, Donahue's critique of the MC round causing the head wound has,
>>at most, been grazed but hardly shattered. He's still in the game, as far
>>as this issue is concerned.
>
> As far as you're concerned, that is.
How large was the diameter of the entry wound to the head? You don't
know, do you?
How large did it need to be in order to be consistent with having resulted
from an MC round? You don't know, do you?
Then, OF COURSE, Donahue is still in the game on this issue.
>>And this is an issue skewed in his favor because a larger wound would only
>>prove that an MC round strike to the head was POSSIBLE, not that it
>>appened -- while a smaller wound would prove that an MC round strike to
>>the head was IMPOSSIBLE.
>>
>>Donahue's analysis is largely based on trajectory anyway. The size of the
>>head wound is a side issue in some respects, which may or may not prove to
>>be supportive of his trajectory analysis.
>
> Argue with someone else defending Donahue's case who is unfamiliar with
> the medical evidence like DVP or Fiorentino or McAdams.....this exchange
> is too silly for me....bye.
I know how you feel, Canal.
My ego is no smaller than yours. I know exactly what it feels like when
the entire world is wrong, except for me.
Osprey
<snip>
> I have never seen the Bronson film shown so clearly.
( The threatening significance of which cruelly eludes him.)
> It's still not all THAT clear.
Perhaps a monitor wipe. Upgrading from DOS.
> But I wouldn't have guessed that even this level of
> clarity was possible.
You-Tube’s high standard of fidelity has left many jaded.
> Far from disproving the Mortal Error scenario, this
> frame supports it. It doesn't PROVE that Hickey
> accidentally shot JFK, but it's not inconsistent with
> the idea.
> It unquestionably shows Hickey standing up at the
> right moment.
I think you’re confusing Santa Claus in his sleigh. Fonzi on his
surfboard. Oswald in the doorway.
<snip>
> The picture doesn't expressly show him wielding
> the AR-15.
( Good. He seems to have absorbed the shock.)
> There is still not enough clarity to enable anyone to
> make that determination. Not merely from looking
> at the photo.
A reasonable person can clearly see that Hickey is not nearly high
enough to allow his rifle the elevation necessary to shoot over the
Cadillac’s windshield, as shown in the “Mortal Error” drawing.
> But there's no reason to doubt that he was standing
> up and wielding the AR-15 at the operative moment
It’s just an amateur motion picture film showed otherwise.
> because a number of witnesses -- including a number
> of Secret Service agents – affirmed that he was.
Most of which is soft evidence, open to the interpretation and
misrepresentation of others. Of course, Dumahue and Menniger are going to
buff statements, however ambiguous, to make it more favorable to their
chimera.
<snip>
> Your caption refers to Glen Bennett. Have you
> bothered to read what he said?
Well, yes, I have read, a few times now, the entire Appendix A (SSA
Testimony and Statements) of “Mortal Error”. I’m just not that into
adopting bits of it metaphorically to further a half-baked theory not
grounded in a shred of hard evidence.
> "A second shot followed immediately and hit the
> right rear high of the President's head. I immediately
> hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15
> located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent
> Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15."
> Is that clear to you?
C’est la vie! Why, I’m certainly not going to believe my lying eyes
now when the Bronson film tries to deceive them otherwise.
> IMMEDIATELY after Kennedy was struck in the
> head, Bennett notices that Hickey has already picked
> up the AR-15. And the Bronson photo/film is NOT
> inconsistent with this.
You think Bennett’s statement infers all that? He’s certainly liberal
with the term “immediately.” Bennett says “A second shot followed
immediately.” In “Mortal Error”, the spread between Oswald’s second
(and last) shot at Z-237, according to Donahue, to the fatal shot was
about four seconds. To Bennett, that span is “immediate.” To
extrapolate Bennett’s notion of an “immediate” span from Z-313 would
mean another four seconds passed before Bennett even “hollered ‘he’s
hit’.”
Bennett said: “The President’s car immediately kicked into high gear
and the follow-up car followed.” The films show the acceleration of
the cars after the headshot took a few seconds – it wasn’t
instantaneous, so Bennett’s application of the word “immediately”
begs clarification. Bennett also said: “I had drawn my revolver when I
saw S/A Hickey had the AR-15.” So he had to have drawn that (after the
fatal shot) even before he started to reach for the AR-15.
But why resort to duelling interpretations of soft evidence? The hard
evidence of the Bronson film convincingly leaves the Donahue theory
kaput.
> None of this -- the Bronson film or the witness
> testimony -- proves that the AR-15 ever discharged
> in Hickey's hands. None of it proves that the barrel
> was pointed in Kennedy's direction when and if it did.
( Good gravy. He’s starting to come around.)
> But certainly the Mortal Error scenario isn't disproven
> by the Bronson film and, if anything, it's been mildly
> strengthened by it.
Then it would be the only minim of hard evidence “Mortal Error” has
left. When it comes to photo interpretation, I’ll concede: you’re on a
par with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
> It was one thing to read the witness testimony. It was
> another thing to have Bonar Menninger tell me over the
> phone -- as he did back in 2004 -- that when he and
> Donahue saw the close-up film (before publication of ME),
> they determined it to be inconclusive because it simply
> showed Hickey standing up without showing exactly
> what he was doing.
( No mention in the book of a film that could have helped their
theory.)
> It was another thing to see this close-up myself for the
> first time and to actually see that Hickey was standing up.
A graphic would better illustrate what exactly it is you think
represents Hickey standing up. Hickey and Bennett are in line with a
person on north Elm who’s there before, during and after the follow-up
car goes by. That person is not in the car, but rather standing on
north Elm.
> So I owe you a small measure of thanks. And now
> I dismiss you. You're free to leave.
Careful yer no be touchin' the heel of ma’ boot, sonny.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 6, 2:37 pm, Osprey<osprey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
>>> You've engaged in a great deal of effort simply
>>> to bait me
>>
>> ( He who thinks the world revolves around him.)
>
>
> Obviously, the world DOES revolve around me since you've spared no
> pains to prove it.
>
> A sensible person like you wouldn't go to all that trouble for no
> reason.
>
>
>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
>
>
>
> Excellent.
>
> I have never seen the Bronson film shown so clearly.
>
So again you confirm that you never got the Groden video as I suggested
that you do. And yet you kept claiming that you had seen the Bronson film.
> It's still not all THAT clear. But I wouldn't have guessed that even
> this level of clarity was possible.
>
> Far from disproving the Mortal Error scenario, this frame supports
> it. It doesn't PROVE that Hickey accidentally shot JFK, but it's not
> inconsistent with the idea.
>
> It unquestionably shows Hickey standing up at the right moment.
>
> I know that your caption suggests that it doesn't. But the picture
> speaks louder than your caption, and the picture clearly shows
> otherwise. Hickey is standing up. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
I don't think that is Hickey you see. His clothes look lighter than a SS
agent. I think it is a spectator near the woman pointed out by the
arrow. That spectator can not simply vanish into thin air between the
film and the photo. All the other spectators appear to be there.
> I've heard other people say that the Bronson film shows that Hickey
> wasn't standing up. But the picture speaks louder than they do, and
> he clearly IS standing up. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
Optical illusion.
> The picture doesn't expressly show him wielding the AR-15. There is
> still not enough clarity to enable anyone to make that determination.
> Not merely from looking at the photo.
>
It certainly doesn't show anything high enough to shoot over the
windshield.
> But there's no reason to doubt that he was standing up and wielding
> the AR-15 at the operative moment because a number of witnesses --
> including a number of Secret Service agents -- affirmed that he was.
>
No, they didn't. You are misusing historical evidence to push an agenda.
> I was pretty sure that there was no film or photograph that suggested
> otherwise, and there isn't. The photo shows Hickey standing up. The
> witness testimony states that he was holding the AR-15, and since the
Yeah, AFTER they got through the underpass.
You also have to realize that he created that graphic by flipping the
Donahue drawing left for right. So the SS agent you see standing on the
running board was actually the one on the right side of the car, not on
the left as his graphic shows it. So don't try to match up what you see in
the Bronson film with his graphic.
John Canal
says...
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:h0hj2...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <QxUWl.20083$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, Grizzlie
>> Antagonist
>> says...
I was going to let you get the last word in, but you got the last 200-300
words in so, because I wasn't doing much else anyway....I'll try once more
to straighten you out.
[...]
>> You fail to let it sink in that he told his readers that he had
>> "breakthrough", AKA Slam Dunk, evidence that it was impossible for LHO to
>> have fired the fatal shot. The evidence he had, however, was anything but
>> slam dunk--6.0 mm IS NOT 6.0 - 7.0 mm!
>>
>> Furthermore, the Warren Report was not a primary source for that so-called
>> evidence--Humes' testimony was. He should have used primary sources,
>> especially if he was using this "evidence" to accuse someone of killing
>> the President of the United States....even if it was by accident.
>>
>>>The WC report said that there was a 6.0 mm wound in the scalp and a
>>>"corresponding" one in the skull, without further elucidation. And again,
>>>Humes testified verbally that it was between 6 and 7 mms. So again, it
>>>has not yet been established, even by the WC's investigation that it was
>>>greater than 6.5 mm.
>>
>> There is a host of other evidence that debunks a shot by Hickey entering
>> JFK's skull.
>
>Mm.
>> First, Dnahue has Hickey's bullet entering the parietal lobe of JFK's
>> brain, but the channel like laceration began at the tip of the occipital
>> lobe...which, because JFK was leaning forward when he was hit would have
>> been several inches behind the parietal lobe. IOW, for Hickey's bullet to
>> enter the parieatl lobe and cause the through and through laceraton that
>> began at the tip of the occipital lobe, the bullet would have had to
>> double-back and re-enter the skull several inches lower.
>You get a little too technical there for me.
But this is a technical issue, is it not?
>> The two large bullet fragments found in the front of the limo were from MC
>> 6.5 mm ammo...not from the type of ammo loaded in Hickey's weapon.
>Donahue has convinced me that those two large bullet fragments did not come
>from the head shot.
So, if they didn't come from the head shot and they didn't come from
CE-399, he's saying that there was no circa Z-160 missed shot...which is
counter to an awful lot of testimony.
I don't want to overwhelm you with technical jargon but the channel-like
laceration through the brain (caused by the bullet that killed him, BTW)
points right at the windshield area. I won't draw that out for you...see
if you can understand that it's highly likely that that the channel-like
laceration, which pointed towards the windshield damage, and that
windsheld damage were caused by the same large bullet fragments.
>> Autopsy photographs nos. 44 and 45 show a bullet entry hole near the
>> EOP...and all three autopsists reported that there was only one entry to
>> JFK's head....obviously--and you don't have to be an attorney to figure
>> this out--the bullet that did enter where the photos show it did ould not
>> have been fired by Hickey.
>
>
>
>You get a little too technical there for me.
But this is the slam-dunk proof, technical as it is, that the head shot
entered near the EOP...right where the beginning of that channel-like
laceration began. IOW the photos are scientific proof that the head shot
did not enter where Donahue said it did, but--surprise, surprise--where
the autopsy surgeons said it did.
>You said that this
>conversation was too "silly" for you, and if it is, you may not be reading
>this.
Only because you had to get the last 200-300 words in, and I didn't want
to see any lurkers who might be as unfamiliar with the technical stuff to
be swayed by your rhetoric. You, I could care less about--you're obviously
committed to Donahue's mythical theory.
>If you are reading it, you're probably getting exasperated and think that
>I'm using my ignorance of these technicalities as some sort of rhetorical
>defense.
What I see is a phenomenon unfolding before me that is hard to
understand--you not knowing the medical evidence, which is critical to
this argument, but still continuing to argue as if you did...it's like you
bringing a sling-shot to a gun fight....that's what frustrates me. Marsh
used to frustrate me that way too--I finally added him to my killfile.
>I'm not doing that. Donahue's discussion of trajectory is covered in the
>body of ME,
But his trajectory can not be reconciled with the brain damage. I can't
make this any simpler for you than to just say Donahue's trajectory had
the bullet entering in the parietal lobe while the bullet actually entered
in the occipital lobe. Do you even begin to sense a flaw in Donahue's
theory? No, because you don't know the occipital lobe from his collar
bone....and that's why, even if you get the last 500 words in--like the
lawyer you are--you can argue with someone else on this...maybe someone
who also is unfamiliar with the medical evidence. That'd be one hell of a
scholarly discussion.
>and his publisher, St. Martin's Press,
obviously knew even less about the medical evidence than Donahue did...or
you do.
>has its own separate
>largely supportive analysis -- though they stop short of absolutely
>affirming that he was right.
That disclaimer should have been on the cover.
>I'm just a dumb lawyer, and I can't follow all that technical jargon
It's pretty interesting, but would take you a few years to learn...I don't
suppose you intend on getting started?
- his
>or yours.
His is different from mine. My technical jargon focuses on the medical
evidence, which he glossed over.
>I do know that Donahue was a qualified expert witness on the
>subject matter,
Ballistics, yes...but stop there.
>and for all I know, you might be also.
I know enough to get by--the medical evidence is what this is all
about....that's what I know best.
>Your
>qualifications might be more extensive than his were.
Not in ballistics, but regarding the medial evidence, yes....but only
because I've studied that subject for about the past ten years.
>I'm sure that
>others who support the official position and others who have other
>interpretations that vary from the official position are equally qualified
>or more qualified.
I'm still looking for someone more knowledgeable about the medical
evidence in this case than I am....there might be someone, but they
haven't shown themselves yet.
>I also know enought to know that experts frequently disagree among
>themselves -- as they obviously do here
That's because all the experts didn't have the same agenda. Politics is
the operative word here.
>and that this renders such data
>to an art, rather than to an exact science. And that the guy who's right
>isn't necessarily the guy with the most letters after his name. In the
>courtroom, it all comes down to what a jury of non-experts, hopefully
>using their common sense, believe.
When it's all laid out the ballistics and medical evidence, as well as the
testimony makes sense.
>I'm a non-expert in this subject matter, and this is what I believe.
>Broken down to its simplest components, what Donahue's scenario holds is
>that a gunshot wound causing severe exit injury to the right side of the
>skull is more consistent with a shot originating from slightly above and
>to the left than it is with a shot originating from high and to the right.
Donahue did not have the benefit of all the latest evidence, especially
the replications of the photographs that show that the entry in the skull
was in the occipital bone (not in the parietal). If his publisher had seen
those replications in 1991, ME would never have been published.
>And to me, that's a good rugged common sense analysis. A good rugged
>common sense analysis.
I agree, if the medical evidence is ignored.
>Right now, I find it more persuasive than yours
>however credentialed you might be.
I wouldn't have expected you to change your mind--if you did, you'd be the
first one on this NG to ever do that.....stick to your sling-shot...er
guns.
>> Another thing, the principal exit was just forward of the coronal
>> suture....Donahue, with a dog-ate-my-homework excuse says that there
>> wouldn't have been an exit defect for the AR-15 round..because the bullet
>> disintegrated. Ya sure.
>
>
>
>I hate it when you show off your ballistic knowledge by using overly
>technical terms such as "Ya sure".
That's just frustration showing because someone comes to a debate knowing
half, if that much, of the evidence pertinent to that debate.
That's all I wanted to hear. I don't want to be rude, but I want to watch
the ball games.
take care, and make sure those rubber bands on your sling-shot are in good
condition.
:-)
John Canal
claviger
wrote:
Grizz,
In the photo comparison the two figures standing next to each other on
either side of the light pole, are almost a mirror image with same height
and narrow shaped face. When the Limousine passes by are we to believe one
of them grew a head taller with a round face? Don't think so. My guess
this is a photo of Hickey standing up. However, if Hickey is seated next
to Bennett then how did this happen when only moments before he was
situated above Bennett with his feet on the seat while sitting on top of
the back rest? It's hard to tell the exact position of the Limousine in
this picture frame. It may be past the point of impact which means Hickey
has already fallen down in the seat after losing his balance. Either way
this photo does more to support the Donahue theory than detract from it.
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:6cea590d-038d-494b...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Grizz,
It is surely a photo of Hickey standing up, claviger.
"osprey" has given us a picture of Hickey standing up and has triumphantly
presented it as proof that he wasn't standing up.
But having said that, I am reminded again of an observation that I have made
many times.
Zapruder and Altgens gave their audiences front row seats. If there is
nevertheless intense dispute, after 45 years, over what is shown in their
photographs, what folly on ANYONE'S part to imagine that 2 seconds worth of
Bronson film -- and taken from the back end of the gallery -- could
definitively settle anything.
> However, if Hickey is seated next to Bennett then how did this happen when
> only moments before he was
> situated above Bennett with his feet on the seat while sitting on top of
> the back rest?
Exactly claviger, exactly.
The Altgens photo -- said to correspond with Z255 -- shows Hickey with his
feet on the back seat intensely looking in the direction of TSBD.
He is in a more heightened state of awareness than anyone else in the
follow-up vehicle. Are we supposed to believe that -- from this heightned
state of awareness in which he's getting ready to stand up -- in a period of
less than 3 seconds, he simply turned back to the front and remained seated?
It simply isn't rational to believe that -- ESPECIALLY in light of a film
which seems to show him standing and ESPECIALLY in light of the witness
testimony that he was standing and wielding the AR-15.
> It's hard to tell the exact position of the Limousine in
> this picture frame. It may be past the point of impact which means Hickey
> has already fallen down in the seat after losing his balance.
You can see just enough of JFK's head to see that it has already engaged in
the "back and to the left" movement. At least I think so. I am confident
that this is post Z313. Hickey may be in the PROCESS of falling down in the
seat after losing his balance.
> Either way
> this photo does more to support the Donahue theory than detract from it.
Yes it does. There are only 2 seconds worth of actual assassination footage
in the entire Bronson film. It would be interesting if someone would blow
these 2 seconds up to the level of clarity that is seen here and give us 36
or 37 Zapruder-like frames.
But sure -- what we see here so far is more supportive than detractive of
the Donahue theory.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> In article <nQ0Xl.12585$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Grizzlie
> Antagonist
> says...
>>
>>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:h0hj2...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <QxUWl.20083$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, Grizzlie
>>> Antagonist
>>> says...
>
> I was going to let you get the last word in, but you got the last 200-300
> words in so, because I wasn't doing much else anyway....I'll try once more
> to straighten you out.
I commend you for preferring to watch the ballgame.
Yes, it certainly is.
>>> The two large bullet fragments found in the front of the limo were from
>>> MC
>>> 6.5 mm ammo...not from the type of ammo loaded in Hickey's weapon.
>
>>Donahue has convinced me that those two large bullet fragments did not
>>come
>>from the head shot.
>
> So, if they didn't come from the head shot and they didn't come from
> CE-399, he's saying that there was no circa Z-160 missed shot...which is
> counter to an awful lot of testimony.
>
> I don't want to overwhelm you with technical jargon but the channel-like
> laceration through the brain (caused by the bullet that killed him, BTW)
> points right at the windshield area. I won't draw that out for you...see
> if you can understand that it's highly likely that that the channel-like
> laceration, which pointed towards the windshield damage, and that
> windsheld damage were caused by the same large bullet fragments.
<Shrugs>
>>> Autopsy photographs nos. 44 and 45 show a bullet entry hole near the
>>> EOP...and all three autopsists reported that there was only one entry to
>>> JFK's head....obviously--and you don't have to be an attorney to figure
>>> this out--the bullet that did enter where the photos show it did ould
>>> not
>>> have been fired by Hickey.
>>
>>
>>
>>You get a little too technical there for me.
>
> But this is the slam-dunk proof, technical as it is, that the head shot
> entered near the EOP...right where the beginning of that channel-like
> laceration began. IOW the photos are scientific proof that the head shot
> did not enter where Donahue said it did, but--surprise, surprise--where
> the autopsy surgeons said it did.
>>You said that this
>>conversation was too "silly" for you, and if it is, you may not be reading
>>this.
>
> Only because you had to get the last 200-300 words in,
I didn't HAVE TO do anything. No one put a gun to my head. I chose to
respond to you. Just as you chose to respond to me. Your supposition
that I have this compulsion to always get the last word in is badly
misplaced.
> and I didn't want
> to see any lurkers who might be as unfamiliar with the technical stuff to
> be swayed by your rhetoric. You, I could care less about--you're obviously
> committed to Donahue's mythical theory.
Even Donahue wasn't "committed" to his own theory.
He set forth some parameters -- reasonable ones -- that would disprove his
theory to his own satisfaction if they were ever met.
No one else has ever done that, as far as I know. No one else has ever
said, "Here's how to prove me wrong".
As you say, no one's mind ever changes. But Donahue set forth some
parameters that would cause his mind to change if they were ever met.
There's no point in my boring you by repeating them. But I'm convinced
that he's the most honest man who has ever taken a look at this.
>>If you are reading it, you're probably getting exasperated and think that
>>I'm using my ignorance of these technicalities as some sort of rhetorical
>>defense.
>
> What I see is a phenomenon unfolding before me that is hard to
> understand--you not knowing the medical evidence, which is critical to
> this argument, but still continuing to argue as if you did...it's like you
> bringing a sling-shot to a gun fight....that's what frustrates me. Marsh
> used to frustrate me that way too--I finally added him to my killfile.
Wise choice.
>>I'm not doing that. Donahue's discussion of trajectory is covered in the
>>body of ME,
>
> But his trajectory can not be reconciled with the brain damage. I can't
> make this any simpler for you than to just say Donahue's trajectory had
> the bullet entering in the parietal lobe while the bullet actually entered
> in the occipital lobe. Do you even begin to sense a flaw in Donahue's
> theory? No, because you don't know the occipital lobe from his collar
> bone....and that's why, even if you get the last 500 words in--like the
> lawyer you are--you can argue with someone else on this...maybe someone
> who also is unfamiliar with the medical evidence. That'd be one hell of a
> scholarly discussion.
<Shrugs again> My understand is that your absolute insistence that the
bullet entered in the occipital lobe, instead of the parietal lobe is at
variance with the HSCA Panel and the Clark Panel -- all of whose members,
I am sure, are as certain in their viewpoint as you are in yours.
>>and his publisher, St. Martin's Press,
>
> obviously knew even less about the medical evidence than Donahue did...or
> you do.
I know. I know. I know how difficult it is to be the only person in the
world who's right. It's a heavy burden. I'm as familiar with it as you
are.
>>has its own separate
>>largely supportive analysis -- though they stop short of absolutely
>>affirming that he was right.
>
> That disclaimer should have been on the cover.
>
>>I'm just a dumb lawyer, and I can't follow all that technical jargon
>
> It's pretty interesting, but would take you a few years to learn...I don't
> suppose you intend on getting started?
Oh sure, if someone will pay me for my time.
> - his
>>or yours.
>
> His is different from mine. My technical jargon focuses on the medical
> evidence, which he glossed over.
>
>>I do know that Donahue was a qualified expert witness on the
>>subject matter,
>
> Ballistics, yes...but stop there.
>
>>and for all I know, you might be also.
>
> I know enough to get by--the medical evidence is what this is all
> about....that's what I know best.
>
>>Your
>>qualifications might be more extensive than his were.
>
> Not in ballistics, but regarding the medial evidence, yes....but only
> because I've studied that subject for about the past ten years.
>
>>I'm sure that
>>others who support the official position and others who have other
>>interpretations that vary from the official position are equally qualified
>>or more qualified.
>
> I'm still looking for someone more knowledgeable about the medical
> evidence in this case than I am....there might be someone, but they
> haven't shown themselves yet.
I wonder if you wouldn't actually be HORRIFIED to actually find someone
more knowledgeable than you are.
>>I also know enought to know that experts frequently disagree among
>>themselves -- as they obviously do here
>
> That's because all the experts didn't have the same agenda. Politics is
> the operative word here.
I'm relieved to learn that you, of course, have no agenda.
Why are you wasting your time on me then? Do you "have to" get in the
last 200-300 words?
My God! You're like the coyote would be if he ever actually caught that
grisly meatless stringy unappetizing roadrunner.
What an incredible amount of effort expended in exchange for so little
nourishment!
> I don't want to be rude, but I want to watch
> the ball games.
>
> take care, and make sure those rubber bands on your sling-shot are in good
> condition.
Not a bad analogy. There is an oral and written tradition that suggests
that a sling shot was used, on at least one occasion, to bring down a
larger opponent.
bigdog
Why is it so many people feel compelled to come up with some other
explaination than the one that says the guy who owned the rifle, the guy
who aimed it at JFK, the guy who deliberately pulled the trigger 3 times,
was the guy who shot and killed JFK. Why do so many want to stretch for
bizarre alternatives?
Anthony Marsh
No, as I said before it is an optical illusion. What you think is Hickey's
head is the head of the spectator beyond the car. Hickey's head is
actually where you think his stomach is. So he is clearly sitting down.
> "osprey" has given us a picture of Hickey standing up and has triumphantly
> presented it as proof that he wasn't standing up.
>
No, you misinterpreted the photo.
> But having said that, I am reminded again of an observation that I have made
> many times.
>
> Zapruder and Altgens gave their audiences front row seats. If there is
> nevertheless intense dispute, after 45 years, over what is shown in their
> photographs, what folly on ANYONE'S part to imagine that 2 seconds worth of
> Bronson film -- and taken from the back end of the gallery -- could
> definitively settle anything.
>
>
>> However, if Hickey is seated next to Bennett then how did this happen when
>> only moments before he was
>> situated above Bennett with his feet on the seat while sitting on top of
>> the back rest?
>
>
> Exactly claviger, exactly.
>
> The Altgens photo -- said to correspond with Z255 -- shows Hickey with his
> feet on the back seat intensely looking in the direction of TSBD.
>
You can see Hickey's feet on the back seat in the Altgens photo?
> He is in a more heightened state of awareness than anyone else in the
> follow-up vehicle. Are we supposed to believe that -- from this heightned
> state of awareness in which he's getting ready to stand up -- in a period of
> less than 3 seconds, he simply turned back to the front and remained seated?
>
If he is sitting on the top of the back seat, which the Willis and Betzner
photos show he is not, then he'd still need to reach down and pick up the
AR-15 and get back up. Then he'd need to be STANDING on the back seat,
which even your misinterpretation of the Bronson frame does not show.
> It simply isn't rational to believe that -- ESPECIALLY in light of a film
> which seems to show him standing and ESPECIALLY in light of the witness
> testimony that he was standing and wielding the AR-15.
>
Time for you to admit defeat and give up your silly theory.
>
>
>> It's hard to tell the exact position of the Limousine in
>> this picture frame. It may be past the point of impact which means Hickey
>> has already fallen down in the seat after losing his balance.
>
>
>
> You can see just enough of JFK's head to see that it has already engaged in
> the "back and to the left" movement. At least I think so. I am confident
> that this is post Z313. Hickey may be in the PROCESS of falling down in the
> seat after losing his balance.
>
>
>
>> Either way
>> this photo does more to support the Donahue theory than detract from it.
>
>
>
>
> Yes it does. There are only 2 seconds worth of actual assassination footage
> in the entire Bronson film. It would be interesting if someone would blow
> these 2 seconds up to the level of clarity that is seen here and give us 36
> or 37 Zapruder-like frames.
>
> But sure -- what we see here so far is more supportive than detractive of
> the Donahue theory.
>
>
That one frame shows Hickey sitting down.
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I have never seen the Bronson film shown so clearly.
>
> ( The threatening significance of which cruelly eludes him.)
>
>> It's still not all THAT clear.
>
> Perhaps a monitor wipe. Upgrading from DOS.
>
Dearest Osprey,
Please forgive me if I misunderstood, but are YOU actually the person
who created that Web site and composed that graphic?
>> But I wouldn't have guessed that even this level of
>> clarity was possible.
>
> You-Tube�s high standard of fidelity has left many jaded.
>
>> Far from disproving the Mortal Error scenario, this
>> frame supports it. It doesn't PROVE that Hickey
>> accidentally shot JFK, but it's not inconsistent with
>> the idea.
>
>> It unquestionably shows Hickey standing up at the
>> right moment.
>
> I think you�re confusing Santa Claus in his sleigh. Fonzi on his
> surfboard. Oswald in the doorway.
>
I have to do a little mindreading here, but I think his mistake is
seeing the man's head so high and thinking that it Hickey's head when
actually it belongs to the spectator in the background. We can see
Hickey's head where he thinks Hickey's stomach would be.
> <snip>
>> The picture doesn't expressly show him wielding
>> the AR-15.
>
> ( Good. He seems to have absorbed the shock.)
>
>> There is still not enough clarity to enable anyone to
>> make that determination. Not merely from looking
>> at the photo.
>
> A reasonable person can clearly see that Hickey is not nearly high
> enough to allow his rifle the elevation necessary to shoot over the
> Cadillac�s windshield, as shown in the �Mortal Error� drawing.
>
>> But there's no reason to doubt that he was standing
>> up and wielding the AR-15 at the operative moment
>
> It�s just an amateur motion picture film showed otherwise.
>
>> because a number of witnesses -- including a number
>> of Secret Service agents � affirmed that he was.
>
> Most of which is soft evidence, open to the interpretation and
> misrepresentation of others. Of course, Dumahue and Menniger are going to
> buff statements, however ambiguous, to make it more favorable to their
> chimera.
>
> <snip>
>> Your caption refers to Glen Bennett. Have you
>> bothered to read what he said?
>
> Well, yes, I have read, a few times now, the entire Appendix A (SSA
> Testimony and Statements) of �Mortal Error�. I�m just not that into
> adopting bits of it metaphorically to further a half-baked theory not
> grounded in a shred of hard evidence.
>
>> "A second shot followed immediately and hit the
>> right rear high of the President's head. I immediately
>> hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15
>> located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent
>> Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15."
>
>> Is that clear to you?
>
> C�est la vie! Why, I�m certainly not going to believe my lying eyes
> now when the Bronson film tries to deceive them otherwise.
>
>> IMMEDIATELY after Kennedy was struck in the
>> head, Bennett notices that Hickey has already picked
>> up the AR-15. And the Bronson photo/film is NOT
>> inconsistent with this.
>
> You think Bennett�s statement infers all that? He�s certainly liberal
Implies? I think the Grizz infers a lot of stuff based on only his
imagination.
> with the term �immediately.� Bennett says �A second shot followed
> immediately.� In �Mortal Error�, the spread between Oswald�s second
> (and last) shot at Z-237, according to Donahue, to the fatal shot was
> about four seconds. To Bennett, that span is �immediate.� To
> extrapolate Bennett�s notion of an �immediate� span from Z-313 would
> mean another four seconds passed before Bennett even �hollered �he�s
> hit�.�
>
> Bennett said: �The President�s car immediately kicked into high gear
> and the follow-up car followed.� The films show the acceleration of
> the cars after the headshot took a few seconds � it wasn�t
> instantaneous, so Bennett�s application of the word �immediately�
> begs clarification. Bennett also said: �I had drawn my revolver when I
> saw S/A Hickey had the AR-15.� So he had to have drawn that (after the
> fatal shot) even before he started to reach for the AR-15.
>
> But why resort to duelling interpretations of soft evidence? The hard
> evidence of the Bronson film convincingly leaves the Donahue theory
> kaput.
>
>> None of this -- the Bronson film or the witness
>> testimony -- proves that the AR-15 ever discharged
>> in Hickey's hands. None of it proves that the barrel
>> was pointed in Kennedy's direction when and if it did.
>
> ( Good gravy. He�s starting to come around.)
>
>> But certainly the Mortal Error scenario isn't disproven
>> by the Bronson film and, if anything, it's been mildly
>> strengthened by it.
>
> Then it would be the only minim of hard evidence �Mortal Error� has
> left. When it comes to photo interpretation, I�ll concede: you�re on a
> par with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
>
>> It was one thing to read the witness testimony. It was
>> another thing to have Bonar Menninger tell me over the
>> phone -- as he did back in 2004 -- that when he and
>> Donahue saw the close-up film (before publication of ME),
>> they determined it to be inconclusive because it simply
>> showed Hickey standing up without showing exactly
>> what he was doing.
>
> ( No mention in the book of a film that could have helped their
> theory.)
>
>> It was another thing to see this close-up myself for the
>> first time and to actually see that Hickey was standing up.
>
> A graphic would better illustrate what exactly it is you think
> represents Hickey standing up. Hickey and Bennett are in line with a
> person on north Elm who�s there before, during and after the follow-up
> car goes by. That person is not in the car, but rather standing on
> north Elm.
>
And I think you can even see a difference in the color of the clothes.
In looking at the Willis photo and Betzner photo I think Hickey was
wearing a dark suit. I wonder if a film from the DCA shows the color of
his suit clearly.
>> So I owe you a small measure of thanks. And now
>> I dismiss you. You're free to leave.
>
> Careful yer no be touchin' the heel of ma� boot, sonny.
>
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Why is it so many people feel compelled to come up with some other
> explaination than the one that says the guy who owned the rifle, the guy
> who aimed it at JFK, the guy who deliberately pulled the trigger 3 times,
Unless he only deliberately pulled the trigger 2 times.
> was the guy who shot and killed JFK. Why do so many want to stretch for
> bizarre alternatives?
Read a book.
John Canal
says...
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:h0kep...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <nQ0Xl.12585$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Grizzlie
>> Antagonist
>> says...
>> I was going to let you get the last word in, but you got the last 200-300
>> words in so, because I wasn't doing much else anyway....I'll try once more
>> to straighten you out.
>I commend you for preferring to watch the ballgame.
>> But this is a technical issue, is it not?
>
>Yes, it certainly is.
>
>> So, if they didn't come from the head shot and they didn't come from
>> CE-399, he's saying that there was no circa Z-160 missed shot...which is
>> counter to an awful lot of testimony.
>>
>> I don't want to overwhelm you with technical jargon but the channel-like
>> laceration through the brain (caused by the bullet that killed him, BTW)
>> points right at the windshield area. I won't draw that out for you...see
>> if you can understand that it's highly likely that that the channel-like
>> laceration, which pointed towards the windshield damage, and that
>> windsheld damage were caused by the same large bullet fragments.
><Shrugs>
Ok, let me try that again...and I'll loose the technical part about the
channel-like laceration pointing at the windshield.
If Donahue didn't think the two frags found in the front weren't from the
head shot, then I presume he didn't think LHO missed...it that
correct...because it's been years since I read ME and I really can't
recall.
>> Only because you had to get the last 200-300 words in,
>I didn't HAVE TO do anything. No one put a gun to my head. I chose to
>respond to you. Just as you chose to respond to me. Your supposition
>that I have this compulsion to always get the last word in is badly
>misplaced.
Of course you didn't HAVE to...you counselors just don't like to leave the
podium...I forgot that.
>> and I didn't want
>> to see any lurkers who might be as unfamiliar with the technical stuff to
>> be swayed by your rhetoric. You, I could care less about--you're obviously
>> committed to Donahue's mythical theory.
>Even Donahue wasn't "committed" to his own theory.
>
>He set forth some parameters -- reasonable ones -- that would disprove his
>theory to his own satisfaction if they were ever met.
>
>No one else has ever done that, as far as I know. No one else has ever
>said, "Here's how to prove me wrong".
>
>As you say, no one's mind ever changes. But Donahue set forth some
>parameters that would cause his mind to change if they were ever met.
>There's no point in my boring you by repeating them. But I'm convinced
>that he's the most honest man who has ever taken a look at this.
I'm sure he was honest, but his theory depended on the autopsists getting
an awful lot wrong...like their finding that there was a channel-like
laceration that began at the tip of the occipital lobe....he relied
instead on the so-called experts and their analysis of photos and x-rays.
Let me ask you something: Considering that the three autopsists had JFK's
brain in their hands, don't you think it's a bit bizarre to conclude they
said they saw a channel-like laceration that began in the occipital lobe
if it actually began in the parietal lobe?
And, how about this: Why dont you think Donahue ever addressed the trail
of tiny opacities that extended from near the EOP that the HSCA's own Dr.
Joe Davis said was evidence the bullet impacted near there?
An this: Do you think it's very likely that four researchers/authors,
including the bonafied wound-ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, could
have replicated the photo of the entry in the skull and have posiively
concluded the entry was near the EOP...when it was actually in the
parietal?
And I won't even ask you what you think the chances of three pathologists
getting the EOP confused with the posterior parietal.
But I will ask you this last question: If the "Father of the parietal
entry", the Clark Panel's, Dr. Fisher, reported that the skull was
fragmented posteriorly to near the junction between the occiptal and
parietal bones and that the entry was well above that juncture, then why
does the photo of the entry in the skull show it along the edge of the
intact skull?
IOW, I'm asking, if the entry were in the part of the skull that Fisher
said was fragmented, then it couldn't have been photographed in the part
of the skull that wasn't fragmemted, right?
I don't mean to overstay my time at the podium, but one more question only
because you mentioned that the HSCA experts disagreed with the autopsists'
entry location. If Dale Myers' computer analysis showed that the HSCA's
"straight-through the head" trajectory pointed back 124' above the
roofline of the Dal-Tex bldg., don't you think their conclusion, based on
photos and x-rays, that the autopsy doctors were wrong about where they
said the entry was should deserve a closer look?
[...]
><Shrugs again> My understand is that your absolute insistence that the
>bullet entered in the occipital lobe, instead of the parietal lobe is at
>variance with the HSCA Panel and the Clark Panel -- all of whose members,
>I am sure, are as certain in their viewpoint as you are in yours.
Yes they "said" they were certain, although I have one of the HSCA's FPP,
Dr. Davis stating in writing that he would not argue with Humes being
correct about the entry location.
But see above on that.
>>>and his publisher, St. Martin's Press,
>>
>> obviously knew even less about the medical evidence than Donahue did...or
>> you do.
>I know. I know. I know how difficult it is to be the only person in the
>world who's right. It's a heavy burden. I'm as familiar with it as you
>are.
I still think there's someone else out there somewhere who knows the
medical ev. pertaining to the head shot better than I.
>> It's pretty interesting, but would take you a few years to learn...I don't
>> suppose you intend on getting started?
>
>Oh sure, if someone will pay me for my time.
But even if somebody would, in the meantime, don't let that stop you from
arguing your position that is much about that medical evidence you do not
know.
>> I'm still looking for someone more knowledgeable about the medical
>> evidence in this case than I am....there might be someone, but they
>> haven't shown themselves yet.
>I wonder if you wouldn't actually be HORRIFIED to actually find someone
>more knowledgeable than you are.
Actually I wouldn't--I'd at least have someone with whom I could
intelligently discuss issues like these.
>I'm relieved to learn that you, of course, have no agenda.
But I do have one. It is to see that a credible panel of experts
re-examines the evidence in order to ascertain whether the Clark Panel and
the HSCA wrongly overturned the findings of the autopsy doctors.
Vince Bugliosi and I have discussed these issues and he says he wants to
re-investigate them himself, but can't at this time because he's working
with Tom Hanks on a mini-series. I don't blame him for sticking with the
Hanks project, so I will try to get it done by other means.
>> That's just frustration showing because someone comes to a debate knowing
>> half, if that much, of the evidence pertinent to that debate.
>Why are you wasting your time on me then? Do you "have to" get in the
>last 200-300 words?
While you learn about some flaws in Donahue's theory from me (that'll be
the day--I'm sure you've shoved what I said under the rug), I'm learning
something from you--how to say too much. Sorry, I'll try to fix that.
Oh, as far as that goes, I wanted to address you other good points in the
worst way, but I won't be able to--my Grandson wants me to take him to get
a Slurpee.
claviger
> To date, the internet postings of the Bronson film seem to lack the
> fidelity necessary to adjudge whether Hickey was standing prior to the
> fatal shot. Those who have seen the original, or a near-generation to
> it, have not commented on or shopped around what would be one of the
> most fantastic revisionary finds of the previous century. Gary Mack
> has seen the original film and is today trusted custodian of it at the
> Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. He has vouched the Bronson film sequence
> shot on Elm does not show Hickey raising himself up in the Queen Mary.
> Here is a graphic that hopefully conveys this:
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/jfkanalysis/films/mortalerror
This segment of the Bronson film correlates to Zapruder frames
Z324-325.
Anthony Marsh
Segment? I think you mean frame, not segment.
Martin Shackelford
when the Groden DVD includes a high-resolution copy of the film which
is quite adequate to make the determination.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a30...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
claviger
Synopsis of Mortal Error
http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/71154848/Synopsis%20of%20Mortal%20Error#Chapter5TheHeadShot
http://alderspace.pbworks.com/f/1386436139/Mortal_Error.png
See also The Howard Donahue theory on the JFK assassination and JFK: The Smoking Gun.
Synopsis of Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK
Based on the 1992 paperback, ISBN 0-283-06136-7. All page numbers are according to this edition.
Quotes from the book are in italics. The ellipsis ... is used to indicate that parts of the quote have been omitted.
Synopsis of Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK
Chapter 2. The Warren Report
Chapter 3. The Critics
Chapter 4. The Single Bullet Theory
Chapter 5. The Head Shot
Chapter 6. A Fortuitous Encounter
Chapter 7. Kennedy's Unknown Wound
Chapter 8. Murphy's Law
Chapter 9. The Discovery
Chapter 10. Breaking News
Chapter 11. The House Select Committee
Chapter 12. Katie Donahue Forces the Issue
Chapter 13. Blakey's $5 Million Folly
Chapter 14. The AR-15
Chapter 15. The Final Breakthough
Chapter 16. Hope Dies Hard
Chapter 17. Today
Afterword and Appendices
Note from the Publisher
Appendix A: Testimony and Written Statements by Secret Service Agents Regarding Events of November 22, 1963
Appendix B: 1968 Panel Review of Photographs, X-Ray Films, Documents, and Other Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal Wounding of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas
Appendix C: Excerpts from Interviews Conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations with Drs. Humes, Petty, Angel, Baden, Boxwell, and Loquvam
Appendix D: Trajectory Analysis from the House Select Committee on Assassinations Hearings