JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 10, 2023, 11:25:01 AM ---This is getting sillier and sillier.
"IF" the fragment existed? HUH? Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.
This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.
Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death. Then, there are three very small fragments, one of which is also inside the image of the 6.5 mm object.
Since the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment are the two largest back-of-head fragments, and since no one disputes their existence, I have focused on them.
Regarding your comment that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's impact "would be nothing like a painful blunt bang," perhaps part of the problem here is your command of English. I've said repeatedly that the impact of that fragment would have caused a very painful, sharp stabbing sensation when it penetrated all the layers of the scalp and then hit the outer table hard enough to embed itself therein, which is why I've said you should test this yourself by getting a needle and seeing what if felt like to have a small metal surface penetrate into your table.
The term "blunt-force trauma" describes "a non-penetrating type of trauma" caused "a dull object or surface." So, I don't know even know why you are raising the issue of a "painful blunt bang" when I've repeatedly described the pain as a sharp stabbing pain caused by the penetration of the fragment through the scalp and into the outer table.
Hickey fired no shot. You have zero evidence that he fired a shot. It's pure speculation. No one in his car said he fired a shot. He denied firing a shot. His ammo was checked and accounted for. When Hickey sued Donahue and his publisher, they opted to settle out of court. Hickey's shot could not have hit the EOP entry site, as Donahue himself documented very capably (which is why Donahue went with the spurious cowlick entry site, but that site was later soundly debunked and is now widely rejected even by lone-gunman theorists ala Sturdivan).
--- End quote ---
There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?
But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test was carried out in Elm St on 22nov1963.
Hickey fired at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 10, 2023, 09:47:55 PM ---There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?
--- End quote ---
The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.
Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).
One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 10, 2023, 09:47:55 PM ---But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test was carried out in Elm St on 22nov1963.
--- End quote ---
This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.
I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 10, 2023, 09:47:55 PM ---Hickey fired at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.
--- End quote ---
This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.
You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.
There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 11, 2023, 01:43:04 PM ---The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.
Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).
One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.
This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.
I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.
This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.
You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.
There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.
--- End quote ---
Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.
Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 11, 2023, 10:10:41 PM ---Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.
--- End quote ---
The average adult scalp is between 5.5 mm and 5.8 mm deep/thick. I said 5.5 mm to be conservative and to give every benefit of doubt.
It is just not reasonable to argue that a fragment that tore through four of the five layers of the scalp and penetrated into the periosteum would not have caused a sharp stabbing pain. It is even more unreasonable to claim that a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp and embedded itself in the outer table would not have caused an even sharper stabbing pain.
Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 11, 2023, 10:10:41 PM ---Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?
--- End quote ---
Surely you know that this is a very far-fetched suggestion. There is no record of JFK being anywhere near gunfire in a paved area before the day of the assassination. JFK did not enjoy guns and hunting. His only known hunting activity was reportedly when LBJ took him hunting on his ranch about two weeks after the 1960 election, and nothing unusual was reported as occurring during the outing--and, needless to say, there was no pavement in the woods where they were hunting.
You keep saying "if true" about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Why? Do you think that Dr. Mantik fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Do you think that Dr. Chesser fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Dr. Mantik discovered the fragment only after viewing the 6.5 mm object under high magnification, and he then did OD measurements on it to confirm his visual detection.
Do you think that Dr. Fitzpatrick was somehow mistaken when he said, after spending many hours examining the skull x-rays over a two-day period, that there is a small fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays that is within the 6.5 mm object's area when viewed from the AP angle? Do you think that all the HSCA FPP experts were mistaken when they said they saw a small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays that vertically aligned with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Do you understand that even Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that there's a small bullet fragment in that location on the lateral x-rays but that it cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object?
There's no "if true" about it.
Researchers have long puzzled over Sibert and O'Neill's reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4). They said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is close to the lamda, and the lamda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and sagittal suture at the top of the occiput; it can certainly be described as the juncture of the skull bone in the back of the head.
However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm, and that fragment was nowhere near the back of the head but was very close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays.
Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment was based on the autopsy doctors talking about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lamda.
So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.
The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 12, 2023, 05:21:17 PM ---
Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.
--- End quote ---
Kind of like the way JFK is leaning at the time of the head shot:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version