Clark Panel radiologist confesses!

[Vince Palamara]

[Vince Palamara]

[Vince Palamara]

[Vince Palamara]

[Vince Palamara]

[Vince Palamara]

[Vince Palamara]

[Michael Griffith]

Remember, too, that another member of the Clark Panel, Dr. Russell Fisher, told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm "fragment" must have been a ricochet fragment. Of course, we've known for years from Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's optical density measurements that the 6.5 object is a fabrication, a fake image ghosted, via double exposure, over a small amount of genuine bullet fragment material. 

The idea that any fragment would "shear off" from the bottom part of an FMJ bullet as it entered the skull at a downward angle is ludicrous and contrary to everything we know about the behavior of FMJ missiles.

This is not to mention the fact that the 6.5 mm object is 1 cm/0.39 inches below the revised entry site on the skull. Even assuming the impossible scenario of a fragment shearing off an FMJ missile from the missile's bottom side with the missile entering the skull at a downward angle, how in the world would the fragment end up nearly half an inch below the alleged shearing point? How? Did it come alive and crawl 1 cm before deciding to stop?

[Nick Bartetzko]

On 10/29/2022 at 1:47 PM, Vince Palamara said:

How interesting to see the article about Robert G. Baker….

[Benjamin Cole]

28 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

How interesting to see the article about Robert G. Baker….

Interesting...but you seem to be missing the lead. Literally.

The lead (or lede, in newspeak) story has this prominent sentence: "He (JFK) could readily have survived the first bullet, which was found deep in his shoulder." 

---30---

Actually, I am not one to place much faith in early news reporting of big pubic events, which is frantic, and may be true, or earnestly misleading, or planted, or just wrong. 

But that is curious that someone said the first bullet to strike JFK was "deep in his shoulder." 

Later that back wound migrated higher and higher on JFK's back, until it reached the lower neck, courtesy of Gerald Ford. 

Indisputable: In the autopsy, the back-wound bullet was tracked heading downwards into JFK's body at a 60-degree angle. 

Odd.

 

[Pat Speer]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:39 PM, Vince Palamara said:

On an essentially unpaginated part of Dr. David Mantik's new book (no specific newspaper source given)

 

Wait. Are you saying he copied an article but didn't say where he got it from? Sloppy sloppy sloppy.

 

P.S. What's with the topic heading? Morgan didn't confess to anything. He was worried the HSCA FPP would catch onto his "errors" and he was trying to cut them off at the pass. 

As it so happened, the FPP consulted with an Irish doctor who told them he'd looked at the x-rays of men killed by FMJ rifle bullets to the head. He said a lead snowstorm was typical. The problem is that he was basing this on men killed in the Bloody Sunday massacre, and it turned out that one of the British soldiers firing on the unarmed Irish protesters was using--you guessed it--dum-dum bullets. 

So the FPP's expert opinions were GIGO. As were the Clark Panel's... As were the WC's... 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As it so happened, the FPP consulted with an Irish doctor who told them he'd looked at the x-rays of men killed by FMJ rifle bullets to the head. He said a lead snowstorm was typical. The problem is that he was basing this on men killed in the Bloody Sunday massacre, and it turned out that one of the British soldiers firing on the unarmed Irish protesters was using--you guessed it--dum-dum bullets. 

That raises a curious question: Why did the FPP members, all of whom were forensic pathologists, need to ask an Irish doctor about the behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike heads? If firearms expert Howard Donahue knew that FMJ missiles don't leave a lead snowstorm in skulls, how did the FPP members not know this?

And, just for the sake of accuracy regarding Bloody Sunday, some of the Irish protestors were armed IRA members who were firing at soldiers. Also, many of the protestors threw stones and bottles at the soldiers before any of the soldiers began firing. Yes, most of the soldiers' retaliatory actions were unjustified, but the lawless elements in the crowds stoked the fires to begin with by hurling rocks and bottles at the soldiers. 

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

That raises a curious question: Why did the FPP members, all of whom were forensic pathologists, need to ask an Irish doctor about the behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike heads? If firearms expert Howard Donahue knew that FMJ missiles don't leave a lead snowstorm in skulls, how did the FPP members not know this?

And, just for the sake of accuracy regarding Bloody Sunday, some of the Irish protestors were armed IRA members who were firing at soldiers. Also, many of the protestors threw stones and bottles at the soldiers before any of the soldiers began firing. Yes, most of the soldiers' retaliatory actions were unjustified, but the lawless elements in the crowds stoked the fires to begin with by hurling rocks and bottles at the soldiers. 

Doctors like to play God. The members of the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP had little to no experience with military rifle wounds. But that didn't stop them from interpreting a military rifle wound. The HSCA brought Sturdivan on as their wound ballistics consultant but the FPP mostly ignored him. Instead, Baden called Dr. Marshall to ask him about FMJ bullets. Not on the record, of course. Real professional. 

As far as Bloody Sunday... My lord, first you downplay My Lai, and now you downplay the shooting of an unarmed man in the head as he went to help a downed man while waving a white handkerchief. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

And, just for the sake of accuracy regarding Bloody Sunday, some of the Irish protestors were armed IRA members who were firing at soldiers. Also, many of the protestors threw stones and bottles at the soldiers before any of the soldiers began firing. Yes, most of the soldiers' retaliatory actions were unjustified, but the lawless elements in the crowds stoked the fires to begin with by hurling rocks and bottles at the soldiers. 

Am I really reading this ?  Please read the 2010 report : "The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those
members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries"[emphasis added].   

 

[Nick Bartetzko]

22 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Interesting...but you seem to be missing the lead. Literally.

The lead (or lede, in newspeak) story has this prominent sentence: "He (JFK) could readily have survived the first bullet, which was found deep in his shoulder." 

---30---

Actually, I am not one to place much faith in early news reporting of big pubic events, which is frantic, and may be true, or earnestly misleading, or planted, or just wrong. 

But that is curious that someone said the first bullet to strike JFK was "deep in his shoulder." 

Later that back wound migrated higher and higher on JFK's back, until it reached the lower neck, courtesy of Gerald Ford. 

Indisputable: In the autopsy, the back-wound bullet was tracked heading downwards into JFK's body at a 60-degree angle. 

Odd.

 

No, not missing anything. I noted the significance of it. I simply meant it was interesting to see an article on the same page on the Bobby Baker scandal which likely would have kept LBJ off the ticket in ‘64.