JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Michael T. Griffith:
Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.
Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.
Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.
The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.
The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.
For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:
--- Quote ---ME: No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
NICKERSON: Yes it is.
ME: And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.
NICKERSON: Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg141831.html#msg141831)
--- End quote ---
The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.
For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.
Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)
How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.
And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.
Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.
Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry SPersonivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.
As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.
A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).
So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 04, 2023, 12:07:28 AM ---Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.
Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.
Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.
The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.
The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.
For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.
Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:
The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.
For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.
Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)
How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.
And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.
Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.
Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry SPersonivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.
As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.
A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).
So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.
--- End quote ---
On New Year's Eve, you said you were done responding to me. Now, here you are throwing a whole slew of claims at me and expecting me to address each and every one, when you have thus far failed to properly address the problem of a large fragment apparently missing from the AP view. A large fragment in the forehead is visible on the lateral view. Another large fragment is seen above and behind the right eye in that lateral view. That's right where Humes said that he removed it from. Where are the forehead fragment and the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the AP view?
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 04, 2023, 12:07:28 AM ---
The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.
The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.
--- End quote ---
There was no 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. The small fragment that McDonnel placed medial to and above the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes removed. It doesn't seem likely that a fragment would have been deposited on the outside of the skull. McDonnel erred in placing the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull. So, maybe he erred in the placement of that small fragment as well.
Michael T. Griffith:
More follow-up points:
-- In recent days I've gone back and re-read two papers on JFK's head wounds written by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist, and I've found a great deal of worthwhile material. I knew that Riley recognized that two bullets must have hit JFK's head, but I'd forgotten about most of his other observations and arguments.
For example, Riley thoroughly debunks the cowlick entry site, correctly noting that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex under/at the cowlick site that the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel claimed is an entry wound. It's worth noting that both Dr. Mantik and Dr. Artwohl have confirmed that the autopsy photos do in fact show intact cerebral cortex, and the location of this intact cerebral cortex is at the location of the cowlick entry wound.
Riley also argues that the skull x-rays contain "clear signs" of an entry wound near the EOP, close to the location described in the autopsy report. He notes,
--- Quote ---When a line is drawn from the original entrance wound described by Humes et al. to the fragment in the right supraorbital ridge, this line corresponds exactly to the cavitation wound. ("What Struck John: A Reinterpretation of the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
--- End quote ---
Riley further argues that when objective measurements are made, the entry wound is located close to the location given by the autopsy doctors:
--- Quote ---The impression of "cowlick" in the photograph of the entrance wound in the scalp is simply that, an impression for which there is no empirical evidence. When objective measurements (including those provided by the HSCA) are made, the scalp wound is located near where it was described initially by Humes et al. . . .
The HSCA forensics panel provided an illustration of the back of the head showing the wound in the scalp (first figure, far left) and contended that this illustrated a wound in the "cowlick" area. There are numerous problems with this contention (see Riley, 1992). The single sole objective measurement provided by the HSCA is that the wound was located 13 cm from the first prominent crease in the neck. There are numerous problems with this description (e.g., how can it be 13 cm from the base of the neck and 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance?). However, when 13 cm is measured on a scale drawing (bottom, far left; bar represents 13 cm), the scalp wound is not located even remotely close to the "high" entrance wound. When this location is compared to the X-rays, it corresponds exactly to the point identified above (bottom, far right). ("What Struck John: A Reinterpretation of the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
--- End quote ---
And, Riley goes into great detail to explain the fact that an entry wound near the EOP proves that a second bullet must have hit JFK's head. He notes that the fragments and damage in the cerebral cortex could not have been caused by a bullet that entered at the EOP entry site because the entry wound and cerebral cortex damage are not connected by any fragment trail or cavitation wound.
-- An important point to remember about the rear head entry wound is that Dr. Boswell explained that part of the entry hole was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas.
-- Only at the very end of his interview with the HSCA medical panel did Dr. Humes finally go along with the now-debunked cowlick entry site. Go read the transcript of that interview. Over and over again Humes refused to budge on the issue and insisted that the location given in the autopsy report was correct. Among other things, he pointed out that the cowlick entry site was nearly 4 inches higher than the EOP site, and he was clearly annoyed that the panel was suggesting he had made such an enormous, inexplicable error.
The two other autopsy doctors, Boswell and Finck, refused to go along with the higher entry point. Indeed, Finck even questioned how the autopsy photo of the back of the head had been authenticated!
-- Re-reading Riley's research has helped me to better understand why the plotters felt compelled to manufacture evidence that would appear to support the cowlick entry site, why the plotters felt compelled to try to discredit the EOP entry site, and why the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report had to be removed from the skull x-rays.
-- When the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in early 1967, they wrote a report about their review, and in that report they reaffirmed that the autopsy report's EOP entry point was correct. They even said that four of the autopsy photos proved this location was correct. I quote:
--- Quote ---The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate (Attestation of Examination of Autopsy Photographs and Radiographs, 1/26/67, p. 3).
--- End quote ---
However, in a fascinating omission, the autopsy doctors did not mention the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Humes discussed this fragment trail in detail in his WC testimony (2 H 353-354). Needless to say, a fragment trail from the EOP to the right orbit would be powerful evidence that a bullet struck near the EOP and ranged upward as it fell apart. Yet, oddly enough, after reviewing the autopsy materials for five hours, the autopsy doctors said nothing about this fragment trail in their review report, even though they were clearly trying to defend their autopsy findings. So, they either inexplicably failed to mention a key piece of evidence for their claims about the head shot or that key piece of evidence was no longer on the skull x-rays.
-- Yes, there most certainly is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. It is visible under magnification, and Dr. Chesser has confirmed this. Dr. Mantik has produced a diagram of the fragment (which includes size measurements for reference), and the fragment's metallic content has been verified by multiple OD measurements.
-- It is simply ludicrous, clownish to argue that the McDonnel fragment is the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes. The McDonnel fragment is less than 1 mm in length and width, so it's three times shorter than the 3 x 1 mm fragment. Dr. Mantik has confirmed the McDonnel fragment's existence and location with OD measurements and high-magnification analysis.
I might add that not one of the members of the HSCA medical panel disputed Dr. McDonnel's discovery of the small fragment on the back of the skull. They disputed two of the conclusions of two of the other expert consultants, but they did not dispute anything that McDonnel said about the small fragment.
Michael T. Griffith:
WC apologists who refuse to face the fact that there's at least one small back-of-head bullet fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays don't seem to care that no expert on either side has denied this fact. They don't want to acknowledge a back-of-head fragment because they know that such a fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet.
The fact that the autopsy x-rays show at least one small back-of-head fragment has been acknowledged by everyone from Dr. Joseph Riley to the HSCA medical panel to the Clark Panel to Dr. David O. Davis to Dr. Norman Chase to Dr. Larry SPersonivan. This is the fragment that for many years was misidentified as the lateral-view image of the 6.5 mm object. It is about 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.
-- Dr. Riley acknowledges that a small back-of-head fragment appears on the lateral x-rays. One of Riley's main reasons for arguing that the 6.5 mm object is just behind the right eyebrow is that the small back-of-head fragment does not correspond to the 6.5 mm object in density and brightness, and that therefore the small fragment and the 6.5 mm object must be two different fragments ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 9-10, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf).
It is important to keep in mind that Riley wrote his two articles on JFK's head wounds in the mid-1990s, before Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were published in the 1998 book Assassination Science. Thus, Riley, like everyone else, assumed that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment and did not realize that the object is not metallic.
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, acknowledged that there's a small fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays. Like Riley, he noted that the fragment does not have "anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond" to the 6.5 mm object, and he therefore concluded that "no object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio-opaque object in the A-P x-ray could be identified on the lateral skull x-Rays" (ARRB meeting report, 2/6-7/96, p. 2).
-- The HSCA medical panel acknowledged that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull, 1 cm below the alleged cowlick entry site. However, they did not address the obvious disparity in density and brightness between this small fragment and the 6.5 mm object, and they incorrectly claimed that the small fragment was the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object. Everyone from Riley to SPersonivan to Mantik has taken the panel to task for making this impossible assumption. Notes Riley,
--- Quote ---It is inexplicable that the Panel would assert that the large round fragment seen on the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray] corresponds to the fragment near the asserted entrance wound on the lateral x-ray. Comparing the frontal and lateral x-rays demonstrates that it is impossible that the images correspond to the same fragment. ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy," p. 9, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
--- End quote ---
Anyway, the point is that the HSCA medical panel did acknowledge the presence of a small bullet fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays.
-- The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, claimed that the back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays is the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, but the Clark Panel did so in a much more oblique, passing manner (Clark Panel report, p. 11).
-- Dr. David O. Davis, one of the HSCA's radiology consultants and the chairman of the Department of Radiology at George Washington University Hospital at the time, identified a bullet fragment on the back of the skull in the lateral x-rays. He said nothing about the fragment's size, but he noted that on the lateral view it was "3-4 cm above the lambda" ("Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 8/23/78, p. 1, 7 HSCA 222).
On an important side note, Davis also noted that the high fragment trail is 6 cm above and in front of the 6.5 mm object, that the trail extends "“anteriorly from the inner table of the skull at a point approximately 6-cm. antero-superiorly [in front of and above] from the previously described embedded metallic fragment” ("Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 8/23/78, p. 2, 7 HSCA 223).
-- Dr. Norman Chase, another one of the HSCA's radiology consultants and a radiologist at the New York University Medical Center at the time, acknowledged that the lateral x-rays show a bullet fragment, and he concluded that it was the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Using the AP x-ray as his starting point, Chase stated that "the large metal fragment prominent in the x-ray . . . corresponds to the metal fragment in the rear of the head as evidenced on the lateral view" ("Outside Contact Report," 2/27/78, pp. 1-2, 7 HSCA 281-282, emphasis added).
-- Dr. Larry SPersonivan, who served as a wound ballistics consultant for the HSCA, treats the small back-of-head fragment in a curious manner. In commenting on the HSCA medical panel's findings, he correctly notes that this fragment cannot be the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment:
--- Quote ---The frontal x-ray of the head . . . shows a nearly circular density near the higher entry site that the panel identified as a bullet fragment deposited on the skull at entry. It appears to be a disk of something as dense as metal, with a small circular "bite" taken out of the lower edge. . . . This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP [the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, aka the HSCA medical panel] and is mentioned by Dr. Baden [chairman of the panel] as a "relatively large metal fragment". . . . It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC [FMJ] bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. In the Biophysics Lab tests, most of the test bullets' jackets ruptured about midway through the skulls. . . .
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out, . . there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on [from the side/sideways]. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray], it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the President's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the JFK Assassination, 2005, pp. 184-185)
--- End quote ---
Now, why is SPersonivan so vague about the small back-of-head fragment? He does not deny its existence. But, he never calls it a fragment. He calls it "the slightly lighter area." He admits that the HSCA medical panel identified it as the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, and does not dispute the panel's identification and placement of the fragment. However, he does not go beyond observing that the fragment cannot be the lateral image of the 6.5 mm object or of a metal disk. Why the apparent vagueness? Because he has just acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not fragment on the outside of the skull, so he knows that this fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet. I suspect this is also why he says nothing about the McDonnel fragment.
-- Dr. Mantik points out that the small back-of-head fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24).
In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery.
-- We should remember the fact that the small back-of-head fragment and the 6.5 mm object are at the same vertical level, since the small fragment is actually inside the 6.5 mm object when viewed on the AP x-ray. Nobody knew that the small fragment is visible inside the 6.5 mm object under high magnification until Dr. Mantik discovered this (and confirmed its existence with OD measurements). Placing the small fragment inside the 6.5 mm object ensured that the two objects would align vertically. This is important because if the 6.5 mm object were higher or lower than where it is now, it would not align vertically with the small fragment, and nobody would have ever identified the small fragment as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and the forgery of the 6.5 mm object would have been obvious. Dr. Mantik explains this point further:
--- Quote ---On the AP X-ray, the authentic metal fragment lay at the anatomic right side of the 6.5 mm object, but it was located entirely inside of the 6.5 mm object. In fact, it appeared that the darkroom worker had positioned his double-exposed 6.5 mm image to precisely match the (anatomic) right border of the authentic metal fragment. Furthermore, by doing so, he had guaranteed that the 6.5 mm image would not be left without a partner image on the lateral X-ray. On the other hand, if he had not matched the 6.5 mm image to an authentic metal fragment, the 6.5 mm object would have had no partner image on the lateral X-ray, and the forgery would have been obvious. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 24-25)
--- End quote ---
This vertical alignment was part of the reason that so many experts erroneously concluded that the two images were the same fragment. For example, the HSCA medical panel noted that the AP x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be "in approximately the same vertical plane as in the above-described lateral view" (7 HSCA 109).
The forgery of the 6.5 mm object was not perfect, but it was good enough to fool every expert who examined the x-rays for over three decades. The forgers should have created an object on the lateral x-rays that matched the 6.5 mm object in size, density, and brightness, but this would have required a more complicated double-exposure than the 6.5 mm object, and they may have assumed that placing the 6.5 mm object over the image of the small back-of-head fragment would suffice (it did for over three decades). Plus, the science of optical density analysis of x-rays was barely in its infancy in 1963, so the forgers had no idea that one day a radiation oncologist who also happened to be a physicist would detect their forgery with OD analysis.
-- Obviously, the small back-of-head fragment misidentified as the lateral image of the 6.5 mm object is not the McDonnel fragment. The McDonnel fragment is about 5 cm above the lambda, "lies medial" to "the depressed fracture in the right occipital bone," and is "between the galea and the outer table of the skull" ("Report of G.M. McDonnel," 8/4/78, p. 2, 7 HSCA 218), whereas the other fragment is 3-4 cm above the lambda on the lateral view, is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline on the AP x-ray, is 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site, and is on the outer table of the skull.
The McDonnel fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet and could only be a ricochet fragment. Similarly, the small fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site could not have come from an FMJ bullet and could only be a ricochet fragment. These facts prove that more than one gunman fired at JFK.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version