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:
Well, I see that WC apologists have fallen silent in this thread, because they have no credible explanation for the evidence being presented.
In any case, while re-reading the HSCA medical panel’s report, I discovered—and then remembered!—that the panel not only cited the McDonnel fragment but invoked it as evidence for the cowlick entry site:
--- Quote ---In March 1978 Dr. McDonnel of Los Angeles examined the skull films for the panel and reported:
". . . There is elevation of the galea medial and lateral to the area of the fracture and metallic fragment in the occipital region [the 6.5 mm object]. A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment and fracture between the galea lying and the outer cranial table."
Such separation of the galea from the outer skull bones often occurs as a result of the dislocation of adjacent bone fragments and is seen in an explosive-type injury to the skull. The location of the metallic fragment inside the galea medial to the defect in the skull representing the initial penetration suggests that this separation commenced on initial impact allowing the tiny above-described missile fragment to be displaced medially within this space created by explosion (between the skull and its overlying galea). (7 HSCA 131-132)
--- End quote ---
Of course, at least some of the medical panel members should have known that FMJ bullets do not shed fragments when they enter skulls, as their own wound ballistics consultant, Dr. Larry SPersonivan, later pointed out, and as many other forensic and wound ballistics experts observed before SPersonivan made his views known. Moreover, the panel had no good explanation for why the fragment is at least 1 cm from the supposed entry point.
Anyway, the main point is that the HSCA medical panel acknowledged the McDonnel fragment and its location. That fragment could only be a ricochet fragment.
Actually, in theory, the McDonnel fragment could be a fragment from the impact of a frangible bullet. However, there is no entry wound at the fragment's location, and the alleged cowlick entry site 1 cm away has no cavitation wound ("cylinder of disruption" or "wound tunnel") proceeding from it; plus, the lone-gunman theory says that a single FMJ bullet struck JFK's head, not a frangible bullet.
It is interesting that the HSCA medical panel sought to explain the separation of the galea from the outer table by assuming "an explosive-type injury to the skull." High-velocity frangible bullets create "explosive-type" injuries, since they typically explode on impact, whereas low-velocity FMJ bullets do not, and the lone-gunman theory says that the alleged lone gunman used FMJ ammo and a low-velocity rifle.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 17, 2022, 08:40:37 PM ---WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
....
Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.
--- End quote ---
The "flakes" are not sliced off the bullet. I don't see why they could not be bullet lead.
I am sure you knew this, but it is important to understand the physics of a bullet impact on the bullet itself.
When a bullet nose hits a hard target, the nose of the bullet stops or slows significantly but the rest of the bullet keeps going as the copper jacket cannot apply sufficient force to stop it. This causes the bullet jacket to crumple and rupture and the bullet lead to compress. The mechanical work performed by the bullet on itself in compressing the lead adds energy to the lead and can cause the temperature of the lead to exceed its melting point. So when the jacket ruptures, some liquid lead sprays into the surroundings, in this case the brain. The liquid lead then strikes matter in the brain that it cannot penetrate and it flattens out. There were many of these flattened specks of lead throughout the brain and in JBC's wrist wound. This particular fragment just happens to be the largest.
--- Quote ---In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, SPersonivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:
--- End quote ---
SPersonivan thought it might be an artifact in the film, which also makes no sense because it is seen on both views. I don't see where he considered that it was bullet lead.
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 12, 2023, 10:57:55 PM ---. . .
SPersonivan thought it might be an artifact in the film, which also makes no sense because it is seen on both views. I don't see where he considered that it was bullet lead.
--- End quote ---
Here is SPersonivan's quote from his book "The JFK Myths", Chapter Ten (Bungled Autopsy), Page 193:
--- Quote ---The projectile would only break into disks is a person were shot by something like a roll of coins. When the break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, somethings 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 in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of the object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal s-ay, 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.
A metal fragment that cannot be a bullet fragment and appears on only one view of the x-ray would ordinarily be dismissed as an accidental artifact that somehow found its way to the top of the x-ray cassette, for that single exposure. It isn't unusual to see things fall out of the clothing or hair, especially on the tables in the Medical Examiner's Laboratory. Object such as metal buttons would easily cast a shadow on an x-ray. . . .
--- End quote ---
In his book, SPersonivan has a picture of the frontal x-ray.
Question: Does anyone have pictures of both x-rays of the skull, one from the front and one from the side?
In any case, SPersonivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays. Hence, it must be an artifact. But we can decide for ourselves, if we can see both x-rays.
By the way, I wonder how old Fetzer is doing these days. I wonder if he consults with Alex Jones on how to hide his wealth from the Sandy Hook parents.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on January 13, 2023, 02:11:16 AM ---
Question: Does anyone have pictures of both x-rays of the skull, one from the front and one from the side?
In any case, SPersonivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays. Hence, it must be an artifact. But we can decide for ourselves, if we can see both x-rays.
--- End quote ---
It's not an artifact, and it's not on the back of the skull. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on January 13, 2023, 02:11:16 AM ---Here is SPersonivan's quote from his book "The JFK Myths", Chapter Ten (Bungled Autopsy), Page 193:
--- End quote ---
I was referring to SPersonivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":
* "I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]….The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact (e-mail from Larry SPersonivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998). " [as quoted in Mantik's 2015 article "The John F. Kennedy Autopsy x-Rays: The Sage of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"
--- Quote ---In any case, SPersonivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays.
--- End quote ---
Maybe not when he wrote his book. He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version