Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tom Gram

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Music, Fitness, Tech, History, etc.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Tom Gram's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • One Year In
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

  1. At least he said “shot from the rear at a low angle” in the image caption. I haven’t seen any credible attempt to make the in-skull trajectory work from the 6th floor. Bullets can definitely change trajectory significantly on skull impact, but from 6th floor to EOP to right-front area seems like it’d be pushing a 90 degree angle. I’d be curious to see a more precise measurement, though.
  2. Are you sure it’s not online? It says open in full so I’m sure all 29 pages are available at NARA, but the copy of the interview linked is an HSCA copy from Garrison’s files, not the original. Last I checked you can look through all the folders from the papers of Jim Garrison somewhere online, maybe archive.org or the NARA website. I have the folders on a defunct laptop and I’ll take a look when I get a chance. The Garrison papers don’t have RIFs, so you have to dig through the folders manually. Some guy from Australia recently made an index though but I haven’t seen it. Point is I’m sure the Hargis interview is in there somewhere. It’s possible though that the only surviving copy is the HSCA copy, I’m which case you’ll probably have to request a reproduction or visit NARA to get it.
  3. Agreed. This is ludicrous. Pat is entitled to his opinion. What’s next? DVP gets suspended for saying Oswald acted alone? This is supposed to be a debate forum, not a safe space circle jerk for people who can’t handle different points of view.
  4. Agreed. The palm print is easily one of the most suspicious items of evidence in this case. Also I don’t think there’s even any question the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet. The 5/20/64 memo from Rankin to Hoover says pretty much exactly that: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9997#relPageId=373 The last guy to officially handle the bullet for the DPD was J.C. Day. If he was capable of fudging a palm print to nail Oswald, what else was he capable of?
  5. I found one possible mechanism for the high fragment trail that to my knowledge had not been discussed before. It’s not much and I have zero evidence this actually happened in DP, but it’s worth pointing out at least. Long story short, some wound ballistics researchers did a test circa 2013 where an FMJ bullet leaked lead fragments at the point of maximum yaw due to drag forces, and the temp-cavity expansion scattered those fragments across and behind the plane of maximum cavitation i.e. in the direction of exit. If the point of maximum cavitation occurred right behind the inner table of JFK’s skull, with this same fragmentation deal, it would have scattered a line of fragments right across the top of JFK’s head and also would’ve caused an explosive exit. I suspect lone assassin theorists will eventually start claiming something like this really happened. It makes a lot more sense than Sturdivan’s bogus blood leaking theory and some of the other theories out there at least. Still though, one gelatin block in one test study is not much to go on. I’d be interested in seeing more research on this though, any other examples of it happening, etc. Here’s the link to the study if you’re interested. Temp Cavity Study I’m obviously not a lone assassin theorist, but I’m curious about what’s possible, and what’s impossible from a wound ballistics perspective. This is one of the things I’m curious about. There’s so much crap and misinformation out there I like to start with trying to understand what could happen and work backwards from there.
  6. Isn’t this a frontal bone entrance though? It definitely suggests that a direct hit from 6.5mm MC ammo doesn’t typically blow heads off, but the Edgewood tests showed that under certain conditions, MC ammo can cause “explosive” type skull damage after impact with occipital bone. As you know, there are plenty of problems with those tests, most notably that the raw data has never been seen by anyone and that the faces got blown off, but the tests did at least demonstrate that atypical wounding scenarios are not impossible. The 6x15mm entrance dimensions also suggest that the bullet struck at a significant yaw angle, which would increase the chances of an explosive exit and a curved wound track within the skull. I just think the wound-is-impossible argument is a bit overstated. I’d love to find evidence that a shot to the EOP from Oswald’s rifle on the 6th floor could not have caused JFK’s (official) head wound under any circumstances, but my limited wound ballistics research has led me to suspect that is not the case. Unlikely? Yes. Less likely than a tangential wound? Almost certainly. Impossible? Not quite.
  7. I think Greg Parker has brought up this point before, since Abt had been in the press for defending Smith Act cases, or something along those lines.
  8. For $80 per year you can download to your heart’s desire and get literally years worth of reading material. For $40 per year you get infinite searches and can read whatever documents you want online. If you enjoy the JFK case there’s no better investment for your own entertainment. I don’t drink lattes either - I’d rather spend 10 seconds once a year to put that small amount of money towards an endlessly interesting and rewarding hobby and support the best JFK research organization out there.
  9. I just flipped through it briefly but looks like there’s some really interesting stuff in there. Great find.
  10. Seriously. An MFF subscription is a must for anyone doing actual JFK research. The annual fee is indeed worth it many times over. It sounds like Richard needs a Pro membership to enable .pdf downloads through. That is a bit more expensive - coming out to the extravagant price of $79.95 per year. That’s less than $7 a month - literally the same as a single Starbucks latte. I’m not exactly swimming in dough either but c’mon guys. How much time does the average JFK nut spend studying the case? This isn’t exactly a casual hobby if you want to actually learn anything. Kinda funny side note though. I think the “designed by sadists” comment is ludicrous - from a pricing and web design perspective MFF is freaking phenomenal - but the actual monthly price of a pro membership comes out to $6.66.
  11. “Most popular complete theory” doesn’t really have the same ring to it. Also theory completeness is a math thing so it could get a bit confusing. I get what you’re trying to say and am just being annoying, but you could’ve just said “Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory of who killed JFK”. That’s probably accurate and makes the same point you seem to have been going for with this pointless thread.
  12. I saw a Waldron interview a couple years ago and got curious so I made the mistake of buying his book Hidden History or whatever it is in a Kindle sale. Good lord. That was quite possibly the worst JFK book I’ve ever read in my life, especially on New Orleans. It was truly painful to get through.
  13. Please enlighten us on your definition of the word “theory”. Here are a few dictionary definitions for reference: Merriam Webster - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation - an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another Cambridge - something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation: - a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong: So according to the dictionary at least you are literally wrong.
  14. So according to Bill Brown, if 65% of people believe Oswald didn’t act alone, the most popular theory is that Oswald acted alone. Let that sink in for a minute.
  • Create New...